ILNews

Opinions Sept. 12, 2011

September 12, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Kevin B. Arnett v. Thomas A. Webster, M.D., et al.
09-3280
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of the non-medical defendants from Arnett’s Bivens action for cruel and unusual punishment while he was in prison. Finds Arnett properly stated a claim against the medical defendants Beighley, Dr. Wilson, and Paul-Blanc and reverses dismissal with regards to those three. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Dr. Webster because Arnett failed to meet his burden to submit evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find that the doctor acted with deliberate indifference. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Katherine Farley and James Paul v. Hammond Sanitary District
45A05-1008-CT-481
Civil tort. Affirms striking of engineer Michael Williams’ statement regarding the sanitary district’s duty to exercise care, but the trial court abused its discretion in striking Williams’ statement claiming the district didn’t properly clean its sewers and keep them free of debris. Affirms summary judgment for the district on the claims for an unconstitutional taking as the sewage infiltration was brief in nature and didn’t rise to the level of a compensable taking under the Takings Clause. Reverses summary judgment for the district on the plaintiffs’ tort claims on the grounds of immunity and on the claims for negligence. There is a dispute of fact as to whether inadequate maintenance played a role in the sewer backups into homes. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Vaidik dissents.

Maria Lopez Garcia v. Agile Resources Inc. (NFP)
93A02-1012-EX-1425
Agency appeal. Affirms denial of application for adjustment of claim.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court granted four transfers and denied 23 for the week ending Sept. 9, 2011.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT