Opinions July 19, 2012

July 19, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Bobby A. Harlan v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed for two convictions of Class B felony child molesting and order that Harlan register as a sexually violent predator. The order requiring Harlan register as a SVP does not violate the ex post facto clause of the Indiana Constitution, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the course of identifying aggravating and mitigating factors at sentencing, and his sentence is reasonable.

David Daniel Johnson, Jr., by Next Friend, Indiana Dept. of Child Services v. The Marion County Coroner's Office and City of Indianapolis
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for the coroner’s office on the issue of immunity to lawsuit under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. The Coroner’s office conduct in following its own rules does not fall within the definition of enforcement for purposes of immunity
under ITCA. Affirms summary judgment for the government defendants on D.J.’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The evidence designated establishes that D.J. was not sufficiently and directly involved in the removal of his mother’s remains. Finds there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the appellees’ conduct is so outrageous that it satisfies the reckless element of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Remands for further proceedings.

In Re the Marriage of Mary Lynn Manning and Ronald D. Manning, II; Ronald D. Manning, II v. Mary Lynn Manning (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms finding Ronald Manning in contempt for failing to reimburse Mary Lynn Manning for certain orthodontia expenses incurred by their child and affirms the order to produce certain tax returns.

Eric D. Smith v. D. Patton, Scott Fitch, Larry Bynum, and Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of motion for relief from judgment in favor of the correctional officials and Correction Medical Services Inc.

In the Matter of the Paternity of: J.G.; R.W. v. D.G. (NFP)
Juvenile paternity. Affirms modification of father’s parenting time and order that R.W. pay a portion of father’s attorney fees.

Antwane Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I commend Joe for standing up to this tyrant attorney! You ask why? Well I’m one of David Steele victims. I was in desperate need of legal help to protect my child, David saw an opportunity, and he demanded I pay him $3000. Cash. As I received motions and orders from court he did nothing! After weeks of emails asking him to address the legal issues, he responded by saying he was “on vacation “and I should be so lucky to have “my attorney” reply. Finally after lie on top of lie I asked for a full refund, which he refused. He then sent me “bills” for things he never did, such as, his appearance in the case and later claimed he withdrew. He never filed one document / motion for my case! When I finally demanded he refund my money he then turn to threats which scared my family for our lives. It seem unreal we couldn’t believe this guy. I am now over $100,000 in debt digging out of the legal mess he caused my family. Later I was finally able to hire another law office. I met Joe and we worked diligently on my case. I soon learn Joe had a passion for helping people. As anyone who has been through a legal battle it is exhausting. Joe was always more than happy to help or address an issue. Joe was knowledgeable about all my concerns at the same time he was able to reduce the stress and anxieties of my case. He would stay late and come in early, he always went the extra mile to help in any way he could. I can only imagine what Joe and his family has been through, my prayers go out to him and all the victims.

  2. Steele did more than what is listed too. He purposely sought out to ruin me, calling potential employers and then lied about me alleging all kinds of things including kidnapping. None of his allegations were true. If you are in need of an ethical and very knowledgeable family law paralegal, perhaps someone could post their contact information. Ethics cannot be purchased, either your paralegal has them or they do not.

  3. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  4. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  5. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise