ILNews

Opinions Aug. 7, 2013

August 7, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Westminster Presbyterian Church of Muncie, an Indiana Non-Profit Corporation v. Yonghong Cheng and Hongjun Niu, Husband and Wife, as parents of Matthew Cheng, deceased
18A02-1210-CT-791
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Westminster in regard to an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Reverses denial of summary judgment on wrongful death and invasion-of-privacy claims and remands with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of Westminster. Finds although the church recommended the babysitter, in whose care Matthew Cheng died, it did not owe a duty to the Cheng family as a matter of law. Also, rules the church’s publicizing the death did not invade on the Chengs’ privacy because the church did not reap any commercial value from doing so.

Centurion Federal Credit Union v. Michael Trible (NFP)
82A01-1210-PL-482
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court award of damages to Trible. Finds the trial court did not err in its holdings or in computing damages and that Trible did not fail to mitigate damages.  

Dominique L. White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1212-CR-541
Criminal. Affirms sentence of 365 days after White pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class A misdemeanor.  

Dominique L. White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1212-CR-651
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence of four years after White pleaded guilty to four counts of neglect of a dependent, each as a Class D felony; one count of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, as a Class D felony; and one count of driving while suspended, as a Class A misdemeanor.  

Dale R. Davidson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1302-CR-56
Criminal. Remands for clarification of the sentence imposed on Davidson. Agrees with the state that it is not possible to ascertain what sentence was imposed upon Davidson for his convictions of residential entry, a Class D felony; and three Class A misdemeanors of battery, invasion of privacy and interference with reporting of a crime.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.M., Minor child, and J.M. and Z.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
20A03-1301-JT-19
Juvenile. Affirms the involuntary termination of the parental rights of J.M. (mother) and Z.W. (father).

Carlos Ramos v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1211-CR-949
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor. Finds the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that Ramos understood his right to a trial by jury but preferred to proceed with a bench trial.  

John Jorman, Jr., v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A04-1203-PC-163
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Jorman’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Daniel Aguilar, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)

64A05-1212-CR-665
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class C felony child molesting. However, finds the trial court did not specify in the record the conditions of Aguilar’s probation, remands this case to the trial court so that it can specify in the record the terms of his probation.

Cody Steele v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1301-CR-14
Criminal. Affirms two-year sentence for escape, as a Class D felony, which was enhanced by one and one-half years due to Steele’s status as a habitual offender.

Shirley Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1301-CR-4
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery as a Class A misdemeanor. Concludes that the incredible dubiosity rule is inapplicable and that Jones’s conviction is supported by sufficient evidence.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline.

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT