A mother who fought to be reunited with her six minor children secured the Indiana Supreme Court’s favor after justices unanimously affirmed a finding that the termination of her parental rights due to her homelessness was not in the children’s best interests.
Even though none of the businesses disagreed over who contaminated a manufacturing site, the question of who should pay for the cleanup became a fight over claim preclusion that ended with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals offering instructions on how the lawsuit should have been defended.
The Indiana Court of Appeals partially affirmed an insurance company’s first award of judgment in a computer hacking theft but reversed on the second after finding no conflict between the appellant’s deposition testimony and a statement in his affidavit.
A Hancock County farm family denied U.S. Department of Agriculture benefits since the removal of nine trees from their farm in the 1990s prevailed in litigation against the agency. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals entered judgment for the family, finding USDA’s rulings in the case arbitrary and capricious.
A father who feared his hostile relationship with his children’s grandparent guardians would prevent him from having visitation with his kids won a reversal of an order stating parenting time would be “agreed upon by the parties.”
Judgment for a woman who was sent two debt collection notices by email has been affirmed by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which found the emails did not contain statutorily required disclosures.
The following Indiana Supreme Court decisions were filed Wednesday but were not included in Wednesday’s Indiana Lawyer Daily.
Alberto Baiza Rodriguez v. State of Indiana
18S-CR-143
Criminal. Affirms the Elkhart Superior Court’s judgment that it was not authorized to modify Alberto Baiza Rodriguez’s sentence imposed under his fixed-term plea agreement. Finds the decades-old rule regarding sentence modification — that courts may modify a sentence only if the new sentence would not violate the terms of a valid plea agreement had the new sentence been originally imposed — remains undisturbed. Also finds the Legislature’s amendments to Indiana Code § 35-38-1-17 statute did not alter the settled law of Pannarale v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. 1994), and its progeny.
The estate of a murdered teenage boy could not convince the Indiana Supreme Court that his school was negligent for his death. Instead, justices found the estate’s claims to be barred under contributory negligence law.
A pro se prisoner and serial litigator has been barred from making additional civil filings in the Southern District of Indiana unless he pays nearly $5,000 in filing fees. A judge also raised the possibility of a perjury referral for any future violations.
In upholding a decades-old rule recently codified through a legislative amendment, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled in companion cases that trial courts can only modify a sentence entered as part of a fixed-plea agreement if the modified sentence would not have violated the plea agreement at the time the sentence was originally imposed.
The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday.
Eric Mapes v. State of Indiana
19-1384
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Chief Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Civil. Affirms the Southern District Court’s refusal to recruit pro bono counsel for Eric Mapes. Finds the district judge did not abuse her discretion when she denied Mapes request for pro bono counsel, provided an opportunity to amend, and offered instructions on how best to do so without a lawyer.
A judge sitting on a medical malpractice case who denied for-cause challenges to six jurors did not abuse his discretion in denying the challenges, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled, pointing to the “substantial discretion” trial court judges have over voir dire.
Read Indiana appellate court decisions from the most recent reporting period.
Indiana Court of Appeals
A S v. R E, et al.
19A-AD-00240
Adoption. Affirms the Morgan Superior Court’s decree of adoption filed by grandparents R.S.E. and R.K.E. to adopt their minor grandchild C.A.H. against father A.C.S.’s wishes. Finds the trial court did not err in finding that father’s consent to the adoption was irrevocably implied pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-19-10-1.2(g) because he failed to appear for the final hearing. Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik dissents with separate opinion.
The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL Deadline Wednesday.
Tara Crump v. Andrew M. Saul
18-3491
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. Judge Philip P. Simon.
Civil. Vacates the Northern District Court’s affirmation of an administrative law judge’s denial of disability benefits for Tara Crump. Finds the ALJ did not adequately account for Crump’s difficulties with concentration, persistence or pace in the workplace. Remands to the Social Security Administration.
A man’s permission to build a concrete wall on his northern Indiana lakefront property has been halted now that the Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court’s reversal of his denied application.
A Fort Wayne car dealership lost its appeal of a small-claims case against a woman who won a judgment arguing the dealership fraudulently sold her a car and forged her signature on transaction documents related to the sale.
A bipolar woman’s application for disability benefits will be reconsidered after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded an administrative law judge failed to consider her treating psychiatrist’s opinions in its denial.
The following 7th Circuit Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday.
USA v. Douglas Jackson
15-3693
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Criminal. Vacates Douglas Jackson’s and Antwon Jenkins’ conviction of using or carrying a firearm to commit a federal crime of violence and remands for resentencing. Finds §924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in light of its decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018).
A military veteran ordered to pay his ex-wife lost pension benefits after he opted to receive combat-related service compensation has lost his appeal of a partial denial of his motion to vacate judgment.