Patricia L. Riley

This case concerned an appeal by T.K. from a civil commitment order issued in connection with Community Hospital North. The Indiana Court of Appeals disposed of the matter through an unpublished memorandum decision that dismissed the appeal. Judge Riley authored the decision, in which Judges Najam and Darden concurred, without further elaboration on the grounds for dismissal in the provided opinion text.

healthcarecivil rightsprocedure

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.W., K.K., Ke.K., and L.W., the Indiana Court of Appeals reviewed a trial court's order terminating J.K.'s parental rights to his four children after the Indiana Department of Child Services initiated CHINS proceedings in 2009 due to the mother's homelessness, substance abuse, and failure to enroll the oldest child in school, compounded by the father's incarceration. The children were placed in foster care, and the father was ordered to complete substance abuse assessments and treatment, random drug screens, home-based services, and counseling. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, holding that the father's repeated failures to comply with services—such as missing drug screens for most of the two-year period, testing positive for heroin and other substances when tested, not completing outpatient treatment or home-based services, and experiencing ongoing instability in housing and employment—supported the trial court's conclusion that the conditions resulting in the children's removal would not be remedied. The court noted the father's history of sporadic participation and a period of complete disengagement outweighed his recent claims of sobriety and receptiveness to services.

family law

The case of Puzyński v. State was a criminal appeal filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals under case number 71A05-1111-CR-590. The court reviewed the trial court's decision and issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the lower court's ruling. Judges Riley, Najam, and Darden all concurred in the result. No further details or reasoning appear in the excerpted opinion.

criminal law

In Adams v. State, Samantha Adams appealed the denial of her motion to dismiss felony charges for dealing in and possessing more than 30 grams of marijuana, arguing that Indiana Code § 35-48-1-19 is unconstitutionally vague because it excludes “mature stalks” from the definition of marijuana without defining the term, leading different labs to weigh plants inconsistently. The trial court had denied the motion after a forensic scientist testified to cutting stalks below the first branch per lab protocol, and the appellate court affirmed. The Court of Appeals held that the sentencing enhancements for weight apply to “pure or adulterated” marijuana, so any stalks retained in the weighing process still qualify as adulterated marijuana supporting the felony charges; therefore the lack of a precise statutory definition of “mature stalks” did not render the statute vague as applied to Adams. The court interpreted the statute’s structure to give effect to the legislature’s intent that quantity enhancements cover adulterated material and concluded the trial court properly denied dismissal.

criminal lawprocedure

In Sharkey v. State, Gabriel Sharkey appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to intimidation as a Class D felony for threatening a police officer over the phone that he would arrive at his daughter's high school "with [his] guns blaring" and "let everybody have it" with a twelve-gauge shotgun, prompting a lockdown that affected nearly 1,800 students and hundreds of faculty. The trial court imposed the advisory 1.5-year suspended sentence under the plea agreement's cap, declined to enter the conviction as a Class A misdemeanor, and found the harm exceeded what was needed to prove the offense as an aggravating factor while rejecting remorse or other mitigators. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the school-wide disruption justified the aggravator, Sharkey's attempts to minimize the threat undermined any claim of remorse, and the sentence was not inappropriate given the offense's impact on the community and his lack of candor at sentencing.

criminal law

In Alderman v. State, the defendant appealed a criminal case ruling from an Indiana trial court. On May 17, 2012, the Court of Appeals of Indiana issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the lower court's outcome. The panel consisted of Judge Riley, who authored the disposition, along with Judges Najam and Darden, both of whom concurred. No further details on the underlying facts, issues, or legal analysis appear in the provided decision text.

criminal law

The case Cross v. State was a criminal appeal filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals under case number 20A03-1109-CR-442. The court issued an unpublished memorandum decision on May 17, 2012, affirming the trial court's disposition. Judge Riley wrote the decision, with Judges Najam and Darden concurring. The excerpt provides no facts of the underlying case, no issues raised on appeal, and no legal analysis or reasoning for the affirmance.

criminal law

The case Mardis v. State was a criminal appeal filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals under docket number 84A04-1109-CR-481. In a brief unpublished memorandum decision issued on May 17, 2012, the court affirmed the trial court's ruling. Judge Riley authored the decision, with Judges Najam and Darden concurring, but the memorandum contains no discussion of the underlying facts, legal issues, or reasoning for the affirmance.

criminal law

The case Beatty v. State was a criminal appeal filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals under docket number 39A05-1107-CR-339. The court issued an unpublished memorandum decision on May 17, 2012, in which a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Riley, Najam, and Darden affirmed the trial court's ruling. The excerpt provides no information about the underlying facts, charges, arguments raised on appeal, or the specific legal basis for the affirmance.

criminal law

This case was a criminal appeal by Lipscomb against the State of Indiana, docketed as No. 71A03-1109-CR-443 in the Indiana Court of Appeals. The court issued an unpublished memorandum decision on May 10, 2012, affirming the trial court's ruling, with Judge Riley authoring the disposition and Judges Najam and Darden concurring. No further facts, issues, or legal analysis appear in the memorandum decision itself.

criminal law

The case concerned an appeal by Gillespie from a decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, which is the administrative body that adjudicates unemployment benefit claims. The Indiana Court of Appeals issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the Review Board's ruling. Judge Riley authored the decision, in which Judge Bradford concurred; Judge Barnes dissented in a separate opinion. The memorandum provides no further elaboration of the underlying facts, legal issues, or reasoning supporting the affirmance.

labor & employment

In Berry v. State, the defendant appealed his conviction for Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana after police discovered the drug during an inventory search of a relative's car he had driven to a car wash in Indianapolis. Officers responded to a report of the car blocking traffic, learned that Berry's license was suspended and that he could not confirm insurance coverage, issued a citation, and decided to tow the vehicle, leading to the discovery of marijuana and related items. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence. The court reasoned that while the community-caretaking function can justify impoundment, the State failed to show that the officer's decision followed established Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department procedures or regulations, as no departmental policy evidence was presented. Without that showing, the inventory search violated the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Foster v. State was an appeal from a post-conviction relief proceeding in Indiana, docketed under number 02A04-1107-PC-398. The Indiana Court of Appeals issued an unpublished memorandum decision on May 3, 2012, affirming the lower court's ruling in full. Judges Riley, Najam, and Darden participated, with the affirmance issued unanimously and without a published opinion detailing the underlying facts or legal analysis.

criminal law

In Mayberry v. State, the defendant appealed a criminal conviction or sentence to the Indiana Court of Appeals under case number 49A02-1109-CR-879. On April 17, 2012, a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Riley, Najam, and Darden reviewed the matter. The court issued an unpublished memorandum decision that affirmed the trial court's judgment in full. No further details regarding the underlying facts, issues raised on appeal, or specific legal analysis appear in the available opinion excerpt.

criminal law

In Parker v. State, the defendant was convicted of Class B felony robbery after he pointed a handgun at two men attempting to sell him an X-Box and drove away without paying. On appeal, Parker argued that his right to a speedy trial under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B) was violated by multiple continuances beyond the 70-day period and that the trial court infringed his right to present a defense by barring him from testifying that the underlying transaction involved marijuana rather than the gaming system. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding first that the speedy-trial claim was waived because Parker never moved for discharge prior to trial and that, in any event, his release on his own recognizance after the 70th day satisfied the rule’s purpose of preventing prolonged pretrial detention. The court further held that excluding the specific reference to marijuana was a proper exercise of discretion under Evidence Rule 403 because the unavailable victim could not rebut the drug-dealing accusation, creating unfair prejudice that substantially outweighed the evidence’s probative value, while Parker remained free to describe the transaction as illegitimate.

criminal lawprocedure

In Myers v. Coats, Jarod Coats sued Indiana Department of Correction official Brent Myers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after Coats was erroneously required to register as a sex offender despite having no qualifying conviction, claiming that the lack of an adequate process to correct the Registry deprived him of a liberty interest and caused employment and personal harm. The trial court denied both parties’ summary judgment motions, finding a liberty interest existed and that the challenge process was inadequate but that factual questions remained about Myers’ personal role. On interlocutory appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that summary judgment should have been granted to Myers because he did not promulgate or control the deficient policy in a manner that caused the harm; any practices he oversaw were subject to review by supervisors and legal counsel, so he could not be held individually liable under § 1983.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case Shaughnessy v. Shaughnessy was a domestic relations matter before the Court of Appeals of Indiana, docketed under No. 06A01-1107-DR-347. The court reviewed the trial court's disposition and issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming it in full. Judges Riley, Barnes, and Bradford unanimously concurred in the March 22, 2012 ruling.

family law

The case concerned whether the New Albany Historic Preservation Commission and City of New Albany properly included Bradford Realty’s property in a newly created historic district in 2002 and whether Bradford violated the district’s rules by replacing the home’s original wood siding with vinyl siding without first obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial court’s summary judgment for Bradford. It held that the ordinance creating the district was a legislative act rather than an adjudicative one, so publication of notice in the local newspaper satisfied due process and actual notice to individual owners was not required. The court also concluded that Bradford had no valid inverse-condemnation claim and addressed whether the vinyl siding constituted a “conspicuous change” requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness under the ordinance.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Schulz v. Kroger Co., Dixie Schultz and her husband sued the grocery store for negligence after she slipped on a clear liquid near a soda display, fell, and was injured; they alleged Kroger failed to protect business invitees from a hazardous floor condition. The trial court granted Kroger’s motion for summary judgment, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Kroger owed invitees a duty of reasonable care but could be liable only if it had actual or constructive knowledge of the danger. The designated evidence—an employee’s affidavit and deposition testimony—showed that store policy required ongoing floor inspections, the area had been clean and dry at most ten minutes before the fall, and no employee had seen or been notified of any spill beforehand. Because nothing in the record created a genuine issue of material fact on the knowledge element, summary judgment was proper.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Gradus-Pizlo v. Acton, Donald Acton sued Dr. Irmina Gradus-Pizlo and Select Specialty Hospital for medical malpractice, claiming their prescription and continuation of Spironolactone for his wife Myrtle contributed to her cardiac arrest and death in April 2006. The defendants sought summary judgment on the ground that Acton’s April 1, 2008 proposed complaint was filed after the two-year statute of limitations under Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act. The trial court denied the motions, finding factual disputes over the limitations trigger date, but the Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the limitations period began no later than March 29, 2006—the date the medication was discontinued—because the alleged malpractice was a discrete occurrence, not a continuing wrong, and therefore the filing was untimely. The appellate court granted summary judgment to both defendants.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability