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 Snyder filed a lawsuit after he was turned away from the polls because his registration had been revoked while he was incarcerated.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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT