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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT