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 Snyder filed a lawsuit after he was turned away from the polls because his registration had been revoked while he was incarcerated.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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Payday loans take advantage of people in many ways. It's great to hear that the courts are using some of their sins to pay money back to the community. Hopefully this will help change the culture of many loan companies, and make lending a much safer endeavor for those in need. http://lawsuitlendingnow.com/lawsuit-loans-post-settlement.html

  2. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  3. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  4. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  5. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

ADVERTISEMENT