ILNews

Opinions Feb. 4, 2014

February 4, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Monday:
United States of America v. Darnell Jackson
13-1496
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a weapon as a convicted felon. By selling the Ruger pistol to David Dircks, who like Jackson was prohibited from possessing a firearm, Jackson transferred the firearm in connection with a felony offense separate and distinct from the possession offense of which he was charged and convicted. Consequently, the District Court properly increased Jackson’s offense level pursuant to section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).

Tuesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Eric Smith v. Executive Director of the Indiana War Memorials Commission, et al.
13-1939
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Reverses denial of Smith’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a policy that requires a permit before gathering on commission properties. The new policy, revised shortly after the District Court denied the motion, retains the problematic features of the old policy. Also, Smith has met the requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction. Remands with instructions to enter an appropriate preliminary injunction.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ruben Gonzalez v. State of Indiana
52A02-1306-CR-526
Criminal. Reverses conviction for Class B felony aggravated battery because of a double jeopardy violation. Remands for trial court to reduce restitution award by $41,200, the amount of a permanent partial impairment settlement paid to Rodney Gahl, a correctional officer Gonzalez severely beat while incarcerated. A PPI payment is compensation for an injured employee’s permanent loss of physical function(s) rather than for an inability to work. Gahl, himself, could not have sought restitution at the criminal proceeding for loss of physical function, as it does not encompass already-incurred lost wages or medical expense. Accordingly, JWF Specialty Company, the third-party administrator for the state’s workers’ compensation benefits, cannot recover the PPI payment via its status as a surrogate victim.

In the Matter of C.U., A Child in Need of Services, C.U. and J.U. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
49A05-1307-JC-354
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication that child is a child in need of services. The evidence supports the designation under I.C. 31-34-1-1 that the parents abandoned the child. Rejects the parents’ claim that the boy should have been adjudicated under I.C. 31-34-1-6 because he substantially endangers his own health or the health of his family members.  

Jason A. Fishburn v. Indiana Public Retirement System
49A02-1305-MI-391
Miscellaneous. Affirms summary judgment for INPRS and the revised determination that Fishburn’s total monthly disability benefit payment from the 1977 fund is 79.85 percent of monthly salary of a first-class patrol officer. Although the statute is ambiguous, the court finds INPRS’ interpretation to be reasonable. Also, based upon the General Assembly’s inaction in the face of the INPRS’ interpretation of Ind. Code 36-8-8-13.5(f), the General Assembly is deemed to have acquiesced in INPRS’s interpretation of the disability benefit statutes.

In the Matter of Des.B. and Dem.B., Minor Children in Need of Services, E.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services

49A02-1306-JC-487
Juvenile. Affirms determination the children are children in need of services. The evidence supports the trial court’s findings that, as of the fact-finding hearing, the mother continued to have extensive problems with drugs and violent relationships with the children’s fathers. The evidence also supports the trial court’s findings that these problems are harmful to the children. The trial court’s findings support its judgment that “there is a substantial risk of endangering the children” and that the children are in need of care, treatment, or rehabilitation that they are not receiving and that is unlikely to be provided or accepted without the coercive intervention of the court.

Jerry Cooper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1309-CR-366
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and remands with instructions to correct a sentencing error.

James B.Wynne v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Thyssenkrupp Presta (NFP)
93A02-1306-EX-536
Agency action. Affirms finding that Wynne voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Steven Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A05-1306-CR-317
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted dealing in cocaine and adjudication as a habitual offender. Remands with instructions that the trial court clarify in its records that it did not enter a judgment of conviction on Class B felony possession of cocaine.

Paul Fletcher v. National Financial Services d/b/a Fidelity Investments and Mark Zupan (NFP)
45A03-1306-PL-211 
Civil plenary. The trial court did not err in considering the issue of the ownership of the 401(k) account because Fidelity filed a complaint for interpleader of the account and the parties filed a joint motion acknowledging that the account was at issue. The trial court erred in granting Zupan’s motion for summary judgment because Fletcher designated some evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact with regard to forgery. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it closed discovery after the case had been pending for more than three years.

Ramon Santana, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1306-CR-213
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony rape and criminal deviate conduct.

Bradly Hornsby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1306-CR-523
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B misdemeanors public intoxication and disorderly conduct.

Brian Brough v. C. Richard Rush (NFP)
88A04-1304-PL-204
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Rush on Brough’s legal malpractice complaint.

Junius U. Brooks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1305-CR-266
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony robbery.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT