ILNews

Opinions March 4, 2014

March 4, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Court of Appeals opinions were posted after IL deadline Monday:
Tanya R. Dawson v. State of Indiana, City of Indianapolis, and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (NFP)
49A02-1308-MI-716
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of motion for summary judgment in an action filed by the state, city of Indianapolis and the IMPD for forfeiture of Dawson’s 2000 Chevy Tahoe.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Janice M. Stern (NFP)
82A04-1306-MF-282
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Stern in the instant mortgage foreclosure action. Remands for further proceedings.

Tuesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Stephen W. Robertson, Insurance Commissioner of the State of Indiana, et. al.
49A04-1302-PL-84
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court order upholding an administrative order that Commonwealth take certain actions to cure its violations of the Rate Statute, the Unsafe Business Practices Statute and the Gross Premium Tax Statute. Concludes that substantial evidence supports the IDOI’s determination that Commonwealth violated the statutes and that the cures imposed by the IDOI for Commonwealth’s violations of these statutes are authorized by the Cure Statute.

Jermaine Christopher Scott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1307-CR-344
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Randy L. Madewell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A05-1305-CR-254
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for three counts of Class D felony home improvement fraud and three counts of Class B misdemeanor home improvement fraud.

Marcus Pernell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1307-CR-345
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery and remands with instructions for the trial court to enter a correct abstract of judgment.

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

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

  2. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.

  3. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia

  4. Oh, and you fail to mention that you deprived the father of far FAR more time than he ever did you, even requiring officers to escort the children back into his care. Please, can you see that you had a huge part in "starting the war?" Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

  5. Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

ADVERTISEMENT