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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT