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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT