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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT