ILNews

Opinions July 19, 2012

July 19, 2012
Keywords
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
84A01-1110-CR-474
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
49A02-1111-CT-1070
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)
86A04-1112-DR-669
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)
33A05-1109-PL-572
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)
49A05-1109-JP-537
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)
49A02-1112-PC-1173
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 

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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT