ILNews

Opinions Dec. 12, 2013

December 12, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Richard Eric Johnson v. Gillian Wheeler Johnson
49S05-1303-DR-199
Domestic relation. Affirms the trial court order with respect to the calculation of Gillian Johnson’s health insurance premium credit and application of Eric Johnson’s Social Security Retirement benefits. Summarily affirms the Court of Appeals as to the remaining issues. The trial court’s approach was appropriate in light of the flexibility afforded by the Indiana Child Support Guidelines.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Anthony Smith v. State of Indiana
49A05-1304-CR-195
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for knowingly violating a protective order. Smith was aware of the protective order and knew he could not contact his ex-girlfriend or come over to her home without the police present.

Charity Lindquist v. Cory Lindquist
23A04-1306-DR-277
Domestic relation. Affirms determination that Charity Lindquist was in contempt for denying Cory Lindquist his Christmas 2012 time. Reverses portion of order that determined the children were not allowed to spend any “one on one” unsupervised time with Charity’s boyfriend. There is no evidence that she is an unfit mother or that the boyfriend posed a danger or detriment to the children. Remands for the trial court to craft an order that will not deny Cory the opportunity to exercise additional parenting time in accordance with the guidelines, but also to permit the children to interact with Charity’s boyfriend on an unsupervised basis should she so desire, so long as Cory’s relationship with the children is not undermined or thwarted.

Paul D. Schoolman v. Tamzen L. Schoolman (NFP)
52A02-1304-DR-344
Domestic relation. Affirms distribution of property in dissolution of marriage.

Jacquelyn S. Johnson-Taefi v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and AME Cleaning Services, LLC (NFP)
93A02-1306-EX-484
Agency action. Affirms determination that Johnson-Taefi is ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Zachariah Brownie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1301-CR-3
Criminal. Judge Brown writes a dissent from the denial of a petition for rehearing, believing the court should reverse the probation revocation order and remand for a new hearing.

Joseph Rothell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1303-CR-225
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of a portion of Rothell’s previously suspended sentence.

Jeffrey Allen Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1304-CR-175
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery upon a law enforcement officer.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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