ILNews

Opinions July 19, 2011

July 19, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Dana Woods, et al. v. Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Corrections
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson
10-3339
Civil. Affirms U.S. District Court’s finding that the Indiana Department of Correction policy preventing inmates from advertising for pen-pals and receiving materials from websites that allow persons to advertise for pen-pals is constitutional.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mark McCann v. The City of Anderson, Indiana, and the Hon. Donald R. Phillippe
48A02-1009-PL-1060
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for the city of Anderson and Judge Donald Phillippe, holding McCann is not due any wages from the city court, as he was not an employee of the city court.

Douglas Cottingham v. State of Indiana
06A01-1008-CR-431
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order that Cottingham, after admitting to a probation violation, serve the remainder of his sentence incarcerated for Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated, endangering a person. Remands to the trial court because Cottingham is entitled to good time credit for his home detention.

Michael Sharp v. State of Indiana
12A02-1010-CR-1188
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class A felony child molesting and Class C felony child molesting, holding that being named a credit-restricted felon does not guarantee a defendant will receive credit for time served, and that convictions on both charges did not violate double jeopardy standards, as each offense required additional proof not used to support the other offense.

Shane A. Schmidt v. State of Indiana
38A02-1008-CR-862
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class C felony criminal confinement, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and Schmidt had not demonstrated his sentence was inappropriate.

Paternity of T.M.; B.M. v. S.K.
49A02-1012-JP-1357
Juvenile paternity. Affirms trial court’s denial of father’s motion to set aside paternity affidavit and for DNA testing regarding paternity of his child, holding that a DNA test conducted independently by the father had not been consented to by both parents, and that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying admissibility of that test.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.C., et al.; M.C. v. IDCS (NFP)
34A02-1011-JT-1229
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Billy Raines v. State of Indiana (NFP)
13A01-1008-CR-415
Criminal. Affirms juvenile court’s waiver of jurisdiction to adult criminal court and subsequent order in adult criminal court denying dismissal and remand.  

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.O. and C.O.; T.T. v. IDCS (NFP)
10A01-1011-JT-611
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

Paternity of A.G.; J.B. v. H.G. (NFP)
49A02-1011-JP-1378
Juvenile paternity. Reverses and remands to the trial court to recalculate father’s post-secondary education contribution for A.G. Affirms court’s finding that father was not in contempt and therefore not liable to pay the mother’s attorney fees.

Richard Brooks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1012-CR-636
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of Brooks’ motion to suppress evidence from a vehicle search.  

Charles Farrell, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1008-CR-457
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

Victor Rybolt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1392
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony invasion of privacy.

John L. Katzioris v. Martin Service, Inc., et al. (NFP)
45A03-1012-PL-654
Civil plenary. Affirms the denial of Katzioris’ motion for a status conference to determine whether the Court of Appeals decision in Martin Oil Mktg. Ltd. v. Katzioris, 908 N.E.2d 1183 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), reh’g denied, resolved all of his claims.

Randy Swisher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1004-PC-204
Post-conviction relief petition. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of B.M.; D.M. v. IDCS (NFP)
49A02-1012-JT-1424
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

Daurrel Figgs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1010-CR-597
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony aggravated battery and two counts of Class B felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon.

Paternity of A.A.; C.A., et al. v. J.B. (NFP)
55A04-1011-JP-723
Juvenile paternity. Affirms trial court’s order awarding custody of son to his father and court’s decision to change child’s surname.

Aaron Isby v. D. Gilstrap, et al. (NFP)
49A05-1009-CT-660
Civil tort. Affirms the trial court’s dismissal of Isby’s declaratory judgment action for failure to state a claim and affirms the trial court’s denial of Isby’s Trial Rule 60(B)(3) motion for relief from judgment based on fraud.

Eugene Lamar Robinson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1010-CR-547
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony criminal confinement.

Robert L. Clark, Jr., et al. v. Robert L. Clark, Sr. (NFP)
01A02-1007-CT-759
Civil tort. Reverses and remands summary judgment on Robert Clark, Jr., and wife Debra’s tort against Robert Clark, Sr., holding the couple’s claims are not precluded by the Indiana Guest Statute.

Alex Russell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1011-CR-581
Criminal. Affirms the revocation of Russell’s probation and the imposition of the entire suspended sentence.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT