ILNews

Opinions Jan. 30, 2014

January 30, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re: The Matter of C.L., a Delinquent v. State of Indiana
05A04-1306-JV-319
Juvenile. Reverses adjudication that C.L. is delinquent for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor intimidation if committed by an adult. It was not established that C.L. committed intimidation for a prior lawful act. The evidence established that the alleged threats C.L. directed toward his grandfather were aimed at influencing future conduct, rather that in retaliation for past conduct. Judge Najam dissents.

Alexis Hutchison and Martha Farber, deceased and Trilogy Health Services, LLC, d/b/a Springhurst Health Campus
30A01-1307-SC-316
Small claim. Reverses judgment in favor of Springhurst Health Campus on its claim against Hutchinson and her now-deceased mother, Martha Farber, for payment of services provided to Farber while she was a resident at Springhurst. Hutchison agreed “to pay the Facility the full amount of the Resident’s income and resources that the Responsible Party/Agent controls or accesses,” and there was no evidence presented that she ever had access to or control of Farber’s income or resources from which to make payment to Springhurst. Remands for judgment to be entered in favor of Hutchinson.

Joel Stoffel v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Federal National Mortgage Association
27A02-1303-MF-299
Mortgage foreclosure.  Affirms the trial court’s rejection of Stoffel’s argument that Fannie Mae’s satisfaction of judgment prohibited Fannie Mae from introducing evidence to show the correct amount of the agreed judgment. Reverses the trial court’s calculation of the amount of the agreed judgment, which the trial court determined after considering inadmissible evidence. Considering only the admissible evidence, holds that the amount of Fannie Mae’s credit bid exceeded the amount of the agreed judgment by $374.58. Remands with instructions that the trial court enter judgment for Stoffel in the amount of $374.58.

Edward Lee Matthys v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1303-CR-217
Criminal. Affirms termination from county re-entry court program and placement in the Department of Correction.

Lincolnshire Healthcare Operations Company, LLC, Lincolnshire Healthcare Center, Inc., and Tender Loving Care Management, Inc. v. The Estate of Dora Berry, by Personal Representative Rita Claxton (NFP)
45A05-1306-CT-276
Civil tort. Reverses denial of Lincolnshire’s motion to compel arbitration. Remands for further proceedings.

In the Matter of the Adoption of T.G.: D.G. v. M.C. (NFP)
89A04-1305-AD-260
Adoption. Affirms order that father’s consent to adoption was not required.

Derrick Barbour v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1304-CR-144
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle with a BAC greater than or equal to 0.15 and an infraction for driving with a suspended license.

Joseph K. Buelna v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1305-CR-223
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A felony manufacturing methamphetamine.

John Wallace v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1306-CR-524
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

John McLaughlin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1305-CR-245
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of T.K. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (NFP)
49A02-1310-MH-878
Mental health. Affirms involuntary commitment to the VA Medical Center.

John Kryza v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A05-1305-CR-239
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanor OWI with an alcohol concentration equivalent of at least 0.08 grams but less than 0.15 grams of alcohol and Class C misdemeanor OWI.

Casey M. Jordan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1307-CR-355
Criminal. Affirms sentence for conviction for indirect contempt of court arising from the violation of a no-contact order.

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

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