ILNews

Opinions March 10, 2014

March 10, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court posted the following opinion March 7 after IL deadline:
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of E.M. and El.M., E.M. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
45S03-1308-JT-557
Juvenile. Affirms in a 4-1 opinion termination of a father’s parental rights, holding that the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court’s order improperly reweighed the evidence and assigned more weight to the father’s attempts toward rehabilitation. Justice Loretta Rush wrote for the majority that after more than three years, the children needed permanency more than a final effort at family preservation. Justice Robert Rucker dissented, holding that there was no evidence children had ever been abused and the state failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that father’s parental rights should be terminated.

Monday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeff L. Ewing and Renee Ewing, Household Finance Corporation III v. U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Structured Asset Securities Corp., Series 2005-GEL4
50A03-1308-MF-327
Mortgage foreclosure. Finds summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank was appropriate. Also affirms U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss the Ewings’ supplemental complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Ewings argued the bank failed to act in good faith during the settlement discussions as required by the Alternative Dispute Resolution rules. The COA held the settlement talks were not a mediation, so the A.D.R. rules did not apply.  

Brian Bradley v. State of Indiana
69A04-1306-CR-268
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony dealing in marijuana. Finds that while one piece of evidence may not have established probable cause to search Bradley’s apartment, taken together and viewed collectively, the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of probable cause. Judge Patricia Riley dissented, arguing police made no effort to verify the information and did not include all material facts in the affidavit.

Jerimaine Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1307-CR-345
Criminal. Affirms Carter’s sentence to concurrent terms of 34 years for attempted murder as a Class A felony, with 32 years served at the Indiana Department of Correction and two years served on community corrections; one-and-a-half-years for resisting law enforcement as a Class D felony; and one year for carrying a handgun without a license as a Class A misdemeanor.

Darod A. Wheeler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1310-CR-462
Criminal. Vacates judgment and remands with instructions to reinstate the Nov. 13, 2012, sentencing order and modify it with the appropriate credit time. The November order included that Wheeler be required to serve three years of his previously suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction. The trial court had amended that order to four years and four months in the DOC. The trial court explained it amended the sentence in order to give Wheeler enough time to participate in a substance abuse program in the DOC.

 In the Matter of L.W. and J.W., Children in Need of Services, and J.W. (Father) and L.W. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1308-JC-700
Juvenile. Reverses the trial court’s adjudication of L.W. and J.W. as children in need of services. Finds that the Marion County Department of Child Services failed to meet its burden demonstrating that coercive intervention of the court was necessary.

Juan Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1307-CR-373
Criminal. Affirms conviction for battery as a Class A misdemeanor.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court did not post any opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not post any Indiana opinions by IL deadline.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT