ILNews

Opinions March 12, 2014

March 12, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinions were posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Cindy Golden v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
12-3901
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge James T. Moody.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Golden’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and denies her motion to certify questions of state law to the Indiana Supreme Court. She alleges in her lawsuit that State Farm owes its insureds a duty to explain at the time a policy is issued that in-house counsel may be used to defend its insureds against third-party claims.

David R. Snyder v. J. Bradley King, Trent Deckard, Linda Silcott and Pam Brunette
13-1899
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of the state-affiliated defendants King and Deckard on immunity grounds and finding that Snyder failed to state a claim against the county-affiliated defendants Silcott and Brunette. Snyder filed a lawsuit after he was turned away from the polls because his registration had been revoked while he was incarcerated. The lawsuit was properly dismissed on immunity and Monell grounds alone. Chief Judge Wood concurs in result.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court

State of Indiana v. I.T.
20S03-1309-JV-583
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s grant of I.T.’s motion to dismiss a delinquency petition filed against him based on information discovered during a polygraph exam administered as part of his probation. Concludes the state could appeal the decision because the trial court essentially suppressed evidence ending the proceeding. Reconciles the limited immunity in part (b) of the Juvenile Mental Health Statute with the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, and construes the statute to conform to that privilege. Here, I.T.’s statements during a court-ordered therapeutic polygraph were impermissibly used against him.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kimberly D. Blankenship v. State of Indiana
55A05-1307-CR-342
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies unlawful possession of a syringe and maintaining a common nuisance. The officers’ reliance on the search warrant was objectively reasonable under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution and, as such, any defect in probable cause underlying the warrant does not render the evidence inadmissible under the exclusionary rule.

In re the Adoption of: J.T.D. & J.S. (Minor Children), Children to be Adopted, and N.E. (Prospective Adoptive Parent) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
45A03-1308-AD-310
Adoption. Affirms denial of DCS’ motions that N.E.’s petition to adopt be transferred from Lake Superior Court to juvenile court, where proceedings are pending for the involuntary termination of parental rights regarding the children. Pursuant to statute, the Civil Division of the Lake County Court System, which includes the Lake Superior Court, has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate adoption petitions.

Steven Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1305-CR-216
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine.

Arafat Isa v. Catherine A. Adams, Christopher J. Perry, and State Farm Insurance Company (NFP)
64A04-1307-CT-349
Civil tort. Affirms judgment on the evidence in favor of Adams, Perry and State Farm on Isa’s complaint seeking damages arising from a multi-vehicle collision.

Personal Resource Management, Inc., and Margaret A. Ditteon v. Evanston Insurance Company (NFP)
84A01-1304-PL-157
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Evanston Insurance Co. on Personal Resource Management Inc.’s and Ditteon’s complaint alleging breach of contract and seeking of damages and a declaration that claims they submitted are covered.

Ty Wilkerson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1303-CR-234
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to set aside guilty plea to Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Tasha Ensley, et al. v. Veterans of Foreign Wars, et al. (NFP)
02A03-1308-CT-340
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of Indiana, in the plaintiffs’ negligence action.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: K.S. (Minor Child), and W.W. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
34A02-1310-JT-876
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Kaneka S. Kidd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1308-CR-398
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for felony murder.

Richard W. Tome v. State of Indiana (NFP)
61A05-1307-CR-324
Criminal. Affirms sentence following open plea of “guilty but mentally ill” on four counts of Class B felony criminal confinement.  

Miguel A. Lazcano v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1311-CR-914
Criminal. Affirms trial court order reducing bond to $170,000.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT