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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT