ILNews

Opinions May 22, 2014

May 22, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Yellowbook Inc. f/k/a Yellow Book Sales and Distribution Company, Inc. v. Central Indiana Cooling and Heating, Inc. and Lawrence E. Stone a/k/a Larry Stone
30A05-1311-CC-561
Civil collection. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands with instructions. The trial court erred when it concluded that Yellow Book failed to credit certain Central Indiana Cooling and Heating payments under Contracts 1 and 2; Contract 3 was induced by fraud and is rescinded; and Yellow Book is entitled to pre-judgment interest and reasonable attorney fees for amounts owed under Contracts 1 and 2.

Maddox T. Macy v. State of Indiana
52A02-1309-CR-808
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Macy’s acts of opening the officer’s police car door and refusing to place her feet inside the car were not acts constituting forcible resistance.  

Julian Tuggle v. State of Indiana
49A05-1308-CR-413
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction. Tuggle’s Fourth Amendment rights and Article I, Section 11 rights were not violated. The evidence demonstrated that the detective acted lawfully and reasonably in seizing the bag of Tuggle’s clothing without a warrant.

Craig Bakari Thomas v. State of Indiana
71A04-1305-CR-256
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and one count of Class D felony sexual battery. Although the state committed prosecutorial misconduct in its first statement, that error was harmless. There was no misconduct related to the prosecutor’s second statement.

Robert R. Setree, II, and Beverly L. Setree v. River City Bank
10A01-1311-MF-485
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of River City Bank granting it the right to foreclose on the Setrees’ real estate. The principles of full faith and credit required the trial court to consider the judgments of a Kentucky court res judicata to the instant cause.

In the Matter of the Paternity of B.C., M.B. and N.S. v. J.C.
54A01-1309-JP-398
Juvenile. Reverses denial of guardians’ motion to correct error following an order on custody and parenting time in a paternity action filed by J.C. in Montgomery County, and denial of their motions in Marion County to correct error following the dismissal of their guardianship and adoption action. Because the petition for adoption and the paternity action were pending at the same time, the court in which the petition for adoption had been filed had exclusive jurisdiction over the custody of B.C. Accordingly, the Montgomery Circuit Court could not properly exercise jurisdiction to enter its July 5, 2013, order as the Marion Superior Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the custody of B.C., and the Marion Superior Court erred when it dismissed the guardianship and adoption proceedings.

Darren L. Sivley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1310-CR-399
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

Jeremy Riffert v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1310-CR-460
Criminal. Affirms 800-day sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator.

William A. Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1305-CR-259
Criminal. Affirms sentence for dealing in methamphetamine as a Class A felony.

Sylvester Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1310-CR-402
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class D felony criminal recklessness.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.S. (Minor Child), and T.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1309-JT-405
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating father’s parental rights.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: E.M.D., E.D., and S.D., (Minor Children), and S.D., (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

45A03-1310-JT-394
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Jerry L. Siers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1310-CR-888
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count of Class C felony child molesting and four counts of Class A misdemeanor tattooing a minor.

Larry Powell v. Vanessa Powell (NFP)
03A04-1308-DR-399
Domestic relation. Affirms division of assets in the dissolution of the Powells’ marriage.

David W. Reed v. Jennifer Reed (NFP)
82A01-1309-DR-411
Domestic relation. Affirms award of primary physical custody of the two minor sons to mother.

Thomas H. Fuller, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1307-CR-336
Criminal. Affirms order Fuller serve his entire previously suspended sentence following a violation of terms of work release.

Megan M. Hatzell v. Tyler A. Hatzell (NFP)
38A02-1309-DR-820
Domestic relation. Affirms custody modification order granting temporary custody of three minor daughters to their father.

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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

ADVERTISEMENT