ILNews

Opinions Nov. 23, 2011

November 23, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Christopher Pavey v. Patrick Conley
10-3878
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller.
Criminal. Affirms District Court’s dismissal of Pavey’s suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies for an injury that occurred while incarcerated. Holds that Pavey was aware, based on his prior experience, of proper channels for filing grievances.

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Town of Avon v. West Central Conservancy District, Washington Township, and Ronnie Austin, in his capacity as Trustee and Park Governor
32S05-1104-PL-217
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s denial of Avon’s motion for summary judgment, holding underground aquifers are “watercourses” as defined by state law and therefore community officials have the ability to reasonably regulate how that water is withdrawn and used by other local governments. Remands for proceedings consistent with opinion.

Today’s opinions:

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Monica Del Carmen Gonzalez-Servin, et. al. v. Fort Motor Company, et. al.
11-1665
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. In a consolidated appeal, the court affirmed decisions by District Courts in Indiana and Illinois granting forum non conveniens in multidistrict litigation. In the Indiana case, the court held that Judge Sarah Evans Barker was acting within her discretion in deciding that the courts of Mexico would be better suited to adjudication of a lawsuit by Mexican citizens arising from the death of another Mexican citizen in an accident in Mexico.

Fort Wayne Telsat Inc. v. JAS Partners, LTD.
11-2112
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s determination that the trustee had acted reasonably in settling the debtor’s claim against Indiana University for $100,000.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. James D. Eichorst
71A03-1102-CR-105
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s determination that Eichorst did not meet the criteria for an enhanced sentence under Indiana Code Section 9-30-5-3, holding that the court erred in its interpretation of the statute. Remands for proceedings consistent with opinion.  

State of Indiana v. Kevin Lee Traver
71A04-1102-CR-131
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s determination that Traver did not meet the criteria for an enhanced sentence under Indiana Code Section 9-30-5-3, holding that the court erred in its interpretation of the statute. Remands for proceedings consistent with opinion.  

State of Indiana v. Donald Loren Wilson
71A05-1102-CR-130
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s determination that Wilson did not meet the criteria for an enhanced sentence under Indiana Code Section 9-30-5-3, holding that the court erred in its interpretation of the statute. Remands for proceedings consistent with opinion.  

Commitment of T.S. v. Logansport State Hospital
79A02-1101-MH-86
Mental health. Affirms trial court’s decision denying T.S.’s request to be removed from the Sexual Responsibility Program at Logansport State Hospital, holding that the state presented testimony from experts that T.S. was still in need of treatment offered by the program.

Gordon B. Dempsey and Gordon B. Dempsey, PC v. Todd H. Belanger
49A04-1104-CT-201
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s denial of Dempsey’s motion to reinstate his complaint against attorney Todd H. Belanger. Holds that appellate attorney fees are warranted and remands for the limited purpose of determining Belanger’s appellate attorney fees.

Ronnie Sanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1105-CR-241
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

L.E. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and F.W.C.S. (NFP)
93A02-1104-EX-445
Miscellaneous. Remands to Indiana Department of Workforce Development’s Review Board to correct calculation error in reduction of L.E.’s unemployment benefits.

Kay Kim and Charles Chuang v. Village at Eagle Creek Homeowners Association c/o Community Association Services of Indiana; and Chubb Custom Insurance Co. (NFP)
49A02-1106-CT-479
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s summary judgment in favor of appellee-defendant and affirms trial court’s dismissal of appellants’ complaint against Chubb Custom Insurance.

Bryce D. Pope v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1103-PC-153
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Taimeka Garnett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1104-CR-192
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

David Gardner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1104-CR-198
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Christina Francis v. City of Indianapolis (NFP)
49A02-1104-OV-303
Local ordinance. Affirms trial court’s judgment finding Francis in violation of Indianapolis-Marion County Ordinance No. 531-102 for having a dog at large.

Robert and Heather Taylor v. Charles B. Caldwell (NFP)
03A04-1105-CT-254
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s decision denying damages for Heather Taylor’s alleged permanent injuries.

In the Matter of J.M.R., Child in Need of Services, M.R. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1105-JV-273
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile court’s finding that J.M.R. is a child in need of services.

George Kotsopoulos v. Peters Broadcast Engineering, Inc. (NFP)
02A03-1012-PL-675
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s denial of Kotsopoulos’ motion to correct error and judgment in favor of Peters Broadcast Engineering (PBE). Per PBE’s concession that Kotsopoulos is not individually liable, remands to the court to amend judgment by removing his individual liability for the judgment.

The Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions 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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT