ILNews

Opinions Feb. 21, 2014

February 21, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of: TLC, a Child Alleged to be a Delinquent Child v. State of Indiana
60A01-1308-JV-377
Juvenile. Affirms commitment of TLC to the Indiana Department of Correction. Finds TLC did not receive unequal treatment and his due process rights were not violated. Rules that the juvenile court had an adequate factual basis to conclude that TLC was guilty of what would be the crime of resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. Concludes the state sufficiently proved that TLC committed what would have been battery, a Class B misdemeanor, had it been committed by an adult.  

In the Matter of: S.G. and M.H. (Minor Children), Children Alleged to be Children in Need of Services, and P.G. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1307-JC-612
Juvenile. Affirms the judgment of the juvenile court. Finds the evidence was sufficient to support the Children in Need of Services adjudication.

Tommy Dawson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-584
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery resulting in bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor.

Timothy W. Woolum, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1306-CR-560
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of Woolum’s probation and order that he serve the remainder of his suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Ronrico J. Hatch v. Kathleen Brita (NFP)
02A05-1307-SC-374
Small claim. Affirms dismissal on grounds that the limitation period had passed.

Don Rudd v. Adam Compton (NFP)
29A04-1306-PL-294
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Rudd’s motion to correct error. Finds the trial court did not err in ordering Rudd to compensate Adam Compton for $24,684.29 in damages to his RV.

Patrick M. McVady v. Rebecka R. Pickett-McVady (NFP)
91A02-1308-DR-675
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Patrick McVady’s request to modify his court-ordered life insurance payments and reduce his child support payments.

John C. Oosta v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1307-CR-251
Criminal. Affirms Oosta’s conviction of two counts of child molesting, both Class C felonies, and his aggregate 12-year sentence.

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

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT