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. 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