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

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT