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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT