ILNews

Opinions Sept. 19, 2012

September 19, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Michael Carpenter v. State of Indiana
85A05-1202-CR-57
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine. The police officers did not violate Carpenter’s Fourth Amendment rights when they entered the house’s curtilage pursuant to an arrest warrant and looked into the bathroom window. The officers also did not violate his rights under the Indiana Constitution.

Columbus Regional Hospital v. Clyde Amburgey, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Moreen Amburgey
03A01-1110-CT-450
Civil tort. Affirms denial of the hospital’s request for partial summary judgment as it argued that the expiration of the statute of limitations with respect to two doctors foreclosed the suit brought by Amburgey. Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the claim of apparent agency.

L.H. Controls, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor, Inc.
16A05-1111-PL-606
Civil plenary. Reverses award of lost profit damages to CCI in the amount of $1,144,470 for breach of contract by L.H., the award of $133,328.53 in attorney fees to CCI, award of damages of $82,184.10 for CCI’s chargebacks, and the $5,259.38 set-off for L.H. the trial court allowed against the $82,184.10. Affirms the awards of $7,077 and $928.86 in costs related to CCI’s removal of the mechanic’s lien against Honda plant’s property. Together with the damages L.H. does not challenge on appeal, this will result in a total award to CCI of $112,864.46. Remands for trial court to make necessary corrections to the judgment.

Duane Turner v. State of Indiana
18A05-1112-PC-697
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Turner’s motion for summary disposition and grant of the state’s motion for summary judgment on the constitutionality of Turner’s life sentence without parole. Affirms denial of relief based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Concludes Turner met his burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to challenge his Class A felony attempted robbery resulting in serious bodily injury conviction. Remands with instructions to reduce that to a Class B felony robbery conviction.

Lavelle Malone v. Keith Butts and Bruce Lemmon
48A02-1203-MI-228
Miscellaneous. Affirms order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Butts and Lemon regarding Malone’s action for mandate. The Department of Correction complied with the requirements of I.C. 11-11-3-9 when it administratively imposed restrictions on Malone’s visits.

Kenneth Kelly v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1112-PC-612
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Bruce Kevin Pond v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A05-1202-CR-73
Criminal. Affirms sentence for voluntary manslaughter as a Class A felony.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT