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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT