ILNews

Opinions Nov. 26, 2012

November 26, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of B.W. and C.W. (Minor Children); J.W. (Mother) B.W. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
33A04-1206-JT-289
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In Re the Paternity of G.J.C. and C.E.C.; J.T. v. N.R. and R.C. (NFP)
45A05-1205-JP-250
Juvenile. Reverses grant of mother’s motion for judgment on the evidence regarding paternity and remands for further proceedings.

Kellylee Sexton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A05-1204-CR-204
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony dealing in a controlled substance.

Kendrick Alexander v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1205-CR-213
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

N.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A01-1205-JV-245
Juvenile. Affirms order juvenile N.L. register as a sex offender.

Todd Shireman v. Todd Hensley and Jerry McKay d/b/a H&M Cattle Company (NFP)
29A04-1201-PL-40
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Shireman’s request for attorney fees under the general recovery statute and the grant of attorney fees to Shireman as a sanction for discovery violations.

Terry Wade v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1203-CR-85
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of a warrantless entry into Wade’s home.

Jonathan E. Perdew v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1112-CR-587
Criminal. Affirms Perdew’s convictions and aggregate eight-year sentence executed and eight years suspended for two counts of Class C felony child molesting, bur reverses a restitution order. Remands with instructions to modify the order to reflect the amount of restitution supported by the evidence.

Jack Marshall v. Beth Marshall (NFP)
27A05-1201-DR-52
Domestic relation. Affirms modification of Jack Marshall’s child support obligation and the treatment of extracurricular and extraordinary educational expenses, as well as the award of attorney fees to Beth Marshall.

J.P. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-JV-360
Juvenile. Reverses true finding of delinquency for resisting law enforcement.

Albert Van Meter and Krissy Van Meter v. United States Steel Corporation (NFP)
45A03-1204-CT-156
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment to U.S. Steel regarding its duty to Albert Van Meter under premises liability principles. Reverses in part the grant of summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether U.S. Steel assumed a liability to Van Meter and regarding breach and proximate cause. Remands for further proceedings.

Oluwasanmi Animashaun v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-CR-248
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion.
 

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