ILNews

Opinions March 16, 2011

March 16, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Mark Siliven, et al. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, et al.
10-2701
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms District Court conclusion that Terry Suttle, director of the Wayne County DCS, and case manager Amber Luedike were entitled to summary judgment on the federal claims on qualified immunity grounds, finding the constitutional rights allegedly violated were not clearly established in January 2008. Probable cause existed to remove C.S. from his father’s custody so there was no Fourth Amendment violation. The use of state action to protect C.S. from his father was reasonable.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
North Willow Operating LLC, et al. v. Stephanie Clay
49A02-1004-CT-444
Civil tort. Dismisses appeal of North Willow Operating following the denial of their motion to dismiss, demand for arbitration and to compel arbitration. North Willow failed to timely bring the appeal.

Pioneer Title v. Chanda Gartin (NFP)
29A02-1004-SC-571
Small claims. Affirms judgment in favor of Gartin in a suit following Pioneer Title's disbursement of funds that were supposed to be held in an escrow account.

Natalie Long v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1009-CR-494
Criminal. Remands with instructions to inquire into Long’s ability to pay and modify the restitution order as appropriate and to set the manner of payment.

Duncan Dillard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
37A03-1007-CR-376
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class C felony possession of cocaine.

Darby L. Hape v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A01-1009-CR-499
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for jail credit time.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT