ILNews

Opinions Feb. 1, 2013

February 1, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Eugene Devbrow v. Dr. Eke Kalu, et al.
12-2467
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney.
Civil. Reverses judgment for the defendants on prisoner Devbrow’s suit that two prison doctors and a prison nurse were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The statute of limitations for a Section 1983 deliberate-indifference claim brought to redress a medical injury doesn’t begin to run until the plaintiff knows of his injury and its cause, so his suit is timely.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Travis Koontz v. State of Indiana
29A05-1202-CR-77
Criminal. Grants rehearing to correct a misstatement of the law, but affirms original opinion that held Koontz waived any claim of an illegal sentence by entering into a plea agreement that reduced his penal exposure. Judge Baker would reverse as previously stated in his dissenting opinion.

Judy Canada v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., BAC GP, LLC, and BAC Home Loans Services, LP (NFP)
49A05-1203-PL-154
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of a motion to reconsider filed by Bank of America in which the trial court reaffirmed its dismissal of Count I of Canada’s class action brought as a Complaint For Fraud on the court and dismissed Count II, which contained an allegation of violations of the Indiana Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Alvino Pizano v. IDOC Commissioner Bruce Lemmons, IDOC Parole Chairman Gregory Server, CIF Superintendent Wendy Knight (NFP)
48A02-1209-MI-770
Miscellaneous. Affirms dismissal of lawsuit.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: Se.L.; N.L.; G.L.; J.L.; Sh.L.; L.L.; & I.L. (Minor Children), and D.L. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
48A02-1207-JT-537
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Christopher Hanneman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
67A05-1207-CR-344
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Theresa Pressinell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

20A03-1206-CR-267
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of dealing in methamphetamine as Class A felonies.

Larry Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1111-CR-602
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct error.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT