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 Snyder filed a lawsuit after he was turned away from the polls because his registration had been revoked while he was incarcerated.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

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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT