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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT