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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT