ILNews

Opinions Jan. 23, 2013

January 23, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
John Doe v. Prosecutor, Marion County, Indiana
12-2512
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Reverses District Court decision to uphold statute prohibiting most registered sex offenders from using certain social networking and holds the law as drafted is unconstitutional. Though content neutral, the law is not narrowly tailored to serve the state’s interest. It broadly prohibits substantial protected speech rather specifically targeting the evil of improper communications to minors. Remands with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Doe and issue the injunction.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Fred C. Feitler, Mary Anna Feitler, and The Feitler Family Trust v. Springfield Enterprises, Inc., J. Laurie Commercial Floors, LLC, d/b/a Jack Lauries Floor Designs, and JM Woodworking Company
17A04-1206-PL-297
Civil plenary. Grants rehearing and concludes that JM Woodworking Co. was not required to issue a pre-lien notice in order to hold a mechanic’s lien, and therefore now affirms the trial court on this point. Denies J. Laurie’s petition for rehearing in full and reaffirms original opinion in all other respects.

D.L., Glen Black, Ann Black, Steven Lucas, and K.L., by her Next Friend, D.L. v. Christine Huck, Laura Zimmerman, Angela Smith Grossman, Rhonda Friend, Angyl McClaine, and IN. Dept. of Child Svcs.
79A04-1202-CT-61
Civil tort. Grants DCS’ petition for rehearing for the limited purpose of reminding counsel that relevant documents must be made a part of the record on appeal, and the record may not be supplemented on rehearing. Grants the family’s petition for rehearing in order to clarify the court’s reading of Indiana Code 31-25-2-2.5; to allow tort claims against DCS to proceed under a theory of vicarious liability, within the ITCA; and to allow federal civil rights claims to proceed. Affirms original opinion as to all matters not revised here.

David Bleeke v. State of Indiana, Edwin G. Buss, Gregory Server, Randall P. Gentry, Thor R. Miller, Valerie J. Parker, William R. Harris, Mia Kelsaw, Damita VanLandingham, and Susan Feasby
02A05-1201-PL-25
Civil plenary. Reverses granting summary judgment for the parole board and denying Bleeke’s motion for summary judgment. Remands with instructions that the trial court: (1) vacate its order granting summary judgment for the parole board and denying Bleeke’s motion for summary judgment; (2) enter an order granting Bleeke’s motion for summary judgment; (3) enter an order enjoining the parole board from enforcing any conditions premised on the fiction that Bleeke is a danger to minors; (4) enter an order enjoining the parole board from enforcing additional parole conditions 8, 5, 17, and 19 against Bleeke; and (5) enter an order enjoining the parole board from requiring Bleeke to incriminate himself as part of the Sex Offender Management and Monitoring Program.

Robert Earl Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1203-CR-145
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction and 65-year sentence.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: A.B. & P.B.; and E.B. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

35A05-1206-JT-298
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Michael Gregg v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1205-CR-400
Criminal. Affirms 20-year aggregate sentence following convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class A misdemeanors resisting law enforcement and possession of marijuana.

Joshua C. Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

35A02-1207-CR-589
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony robbery but reverses order Jackson pay restitution. Remands with instructions for the trial court to inquire about his ability to pay restitution, and if he is able, determine the amount to be paid and fix the manner of payment.

Michael L. Harris v. State of Indiana, Elkhart County Sheriff's Dept. (NFP)
20A03-1208-CR-345
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of denial of Harris’ request for return of property as moot.

Dennis Knight v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A05-1208-CR-436
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony robbery.

Kevin Gene Rotino v. State of Indiana (NFP)
07A05-1205-CR-259
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony dealing in marijuana conviction.

Nathan Abbott, State of Indiana and Indiana State Police v. Michael Mitchell and Leonard Love (NFP)
45A03-1204-CT-167
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of Mitchell and Love on their claims for false imprisonment.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT