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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT