ILNews

Opinions Jan. 19, 2011

January 19, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Anthony L. Smith v. Gilbert Peters, et al.
10-1013
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Chief Judge Richard Young.
Civil. Reverses District Court’s dismissal of Smith’s civil rights suit alleging prison employees violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights. Prison officials who recklessly expose a prisoner to a substantial risk of a serious physical injury may have violated a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights and therefore are subject to those remedies that aren’t barred by 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(e). Also, if the facts alleged in the complaint are true, Smith may have been punished for complaining about mistreatment. Remands for further proceedings.  

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeffrey Allen Rowe v. Indiana Dept. of Correction
46A03-1009-SC-444
Small claims. Dismisses interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s ruling on a motion filed by Rowe of a verified petition for an order waiving all or partial filing fees and court costs. The appellate court lacks jurisdiction because the small claims court’s ruling on his verified petition is not an interlocutory order appealable as a matter of right under Appellate Rule 4(A)(1), and because Rowe did not request a discretionary appeal pursuant to App. R. 14(B).

Leo Machine & Tool Inc., et al. v. Poe Volunteer Fire Dept. Inc., et al.
02A03-1003-PL-143
Civil plenary. Grants rehearing and affirms original opinion in full with the addition that the appellate court now also affirms the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Anderson Excavating on the same legal grounds.

Christina Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1003-CR-153
Criminal. Grants petition for rehearing and clarifies that Smith’s sentence should be revised to four years, with two years suspended to supervised probation.

Kathy Lynch v. Daryl and Elizabeth Ackerman (NFP)
37A03-1004-CC-193
Civil collection. Reverses judgment in favor of the Ackermans on Lynch’s complaint alleging breach of contract.

Jamie S. Weddle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1006-CR-313
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony rape and Class B felony aggravated battery. Vacates conviction of Class D felony criminal confinement.

George Sheffer v. Gayle Sheffer n/k/a Gayle J. Curtiss (NFP)
45A05-1009-DR-543
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of George Sheffer’s motion to correct error.

State of Indiana v. Michael Williams (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-412
Criminal. Reverses in part the court’s grant of Williams’ motion to suppress. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Riley dissents.

Frank E. Willis v. Keith Holder (NFP)
33A05-1009-CT-577
Civil tort. Affirms order granting summary judgment for Holder on Willis’ complaint for negligence.

Michael P. Wright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1006-CR-412
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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