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

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT