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. @BryanJBrown, You are totally correct. I have no words, you nailed it.....

  2. You have not overstated the reality of the present situation. The government inquisitor in my case, who demanded that I, on the record, to choose between obedience to God's law or man's law, remains on the BLE, even an officer of the BLE, and was recently renewed in her contract for another four years. She has a long history in advancing LGBQT rights. http://www.realjock.com/article/1071 THINK WITH ME: What if a currently serving BLE officer or analogous court official (ie discplinary officer) asked an atheist to affirm the Existence, or demanded a transsexual to undergo a mental evaluation to probe his/her alleged mindcrime? That would end a career. The double standard is glaring, see the troubling question used to ban me for life from the Ind bar right here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners (see page 8 of 21) Again, what if I had been a homosexual rights activist before law school rather than a prolife activist? A gay rights activist after law school admitted to the SCOTUS and Kansas since 1996, without discipline? A homosexual rights activist who had argued before half the federal appellate courts in the country? I am pretty certain that had I been that LGBQT activist, and not a pro-life activist, my passing of the Indiana bar exam would have rendered me an Indiana attorney .... rather than forever banished. So yes, there is a glaring double standard. And some are even beyond the reach of constitutional and statutory protections. I was.

  3. Historically speaking pagans devalue children and worship animals. How close are we? Consider the ruling above plus today's tidbit from the politically correct high Court: http://indianacourts.us/times/2016/12/are-you-asking-the-right-questions-intimate-partner-violence-and-pet-abuse/

  4. The father is a convicted of spousal abuse. 2 restaining orders been put on him, never made any difference the whole time she was there. The time he choked the mother she dropped the baby the police were called. That was the only time he was taken away. The mother was suppose to have been notified when he was released no call was ever made. He made his way back, kicked the door open and terrified the mother. She ran down the hallway and locked herself and the baby in the bathroom called 911. The police came and said there was nothing they could do (the policeman was a old friend from highschool, good ole boy thing).They told her he could burn the place down as long as she wasn't in it.The mother got another resataining order, the judge told her if you were my daughter I would tell you to leave. So she did. He told her "If you ever leave me I will make your life hell, you don't know who your f!@#$%^ with". The fathers other 2 grown children from his 1st exwife havent spoke 1 word to him in almost 15yrs not 1 word.This is what will be a forsure nightmare for this little girl who is in the hands of pillar of the community. Totally corrupt system. Where I come from I would be in jail not only for that but non payment of child support. Unbelievably pitiful...

  5. dsm 5 indicates that a lot of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it. so is it really a good idea to encourage gender reassignment? Perhaps that should wait for the age of majority. I don't question the compassionate motives of many of the trans-advocates, but I do question their wisdom. Likewise, they should not question the compassion of those whose potty policies differ. too often, any opposition to the official GLBT agenda is instantly denounced as "homophobia" etc.

ADVERTISEMENT