ILNews

Opinions May 30, 2014

May 30, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In re the Paternity of V.A., (Minor Child), R.A. v. B.Y.
39A04-1310-JP-512
Juvenile. Affirms a special judge’s ruling that the judge who heard evidence remanded to the trial court from an earlier appeal should rule on the remanded issues, as required by Trial Rule 63(A). The panel rejected father R.A.’s objection claiming that his change-of-judge request trumps that rule, finding that the change-of-judge rule only applies prospectively, while Rule 63(A) operates retroactively to ensure that the remanded issues are considered by the judge who heard the evidence.

In Re: The Paternity of V.A., a Minor Child, R.A. Father v. B.Y., Mother
39A01-1307-JP-304
Juvenile. Affirms denial of a petition to modify custody and support, and a motion to correct error. A special judge appointed to hear the case ruled that he lacked jurisdiction, and the panel found that ruling was not an abuse of discretion.

Jose M. Santana v. State of Indiana
20A04-1302-CR-54
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life. Rules although the police officer began following the vehicle because he erroneously ran the wrong license plate number, he did not initiate the stop until he observed Santana fail to signal a turn at least 200 feet before turning.
 
Depuy Orthopaedics Inc. and, Johnson & Johnson v. Travis Brown, et al.
49A02-1304-CT-332
Civil tort. Reverses denial of Depuy’s and Johnson & Johnson’s motion to dismiss and remands to the trial court for dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens governed by Indiana Trial Rule 4.4(C). The litigation over defective hip replacement devices may be re-filed in Virginia or Mississippi, where plaintiffs underwent surgical implantation of the devices.

Joseph Fuentes v. State of Indiana
71A04-1310-CR-522
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony attempted murder, Class C felony possession of a handgun by a felon, Class D felony criminal recklessness and Class D felony resisting law enforcement. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that Fuentes had an assault rifle in his car when he fled police nor did the lower court commit fundamental error by encouraging the jury to continue deliberating after the jurors asked what they should do since they were split on one of the counts. Finally concludes the evidence was sufficient to establish Fuentes intended to kill a police officer.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: O.V., Minor Child, J.V., Mother v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
71A03-1312-JT-499
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of mother J.V.’s parental rights.

Brooke Tubbs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1309-CR-771
Criminal. Affirms 18-month executed sentence and convictions of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended.

Charlie S. Hines III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A05-1307-CR-362
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony dealing cocaine.

Thomas H. Kramer, Member and Manager of Domus Property Investments, LLC v. Mark Kramer, and Domus Property Investments, LLC (NFP)
71A04-1305-PL-261
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court ruling that Mark Kramer violated a non-compete clause with regard to one rental property and finds that he violated those terms with regard to three properties. Remands for total judgment of $333,156 in Thomas Kramer’s favor. Affirms denial of legal fees and prejudgment interest for Thomas Kramer.
 
In Re the Marriage of: Michelle Schlotterback and Terry Schlotterback, Terry Schlotterback v. Michelle Schlotterback (NFP)
57A05-1306-DR-321
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Terry Schlotterback’s motion to correct error relating to the division of the estate amassed during marriage and his motion to correct error with regard to the uninsured medical expenses of the parties’ children.
 
Dietrich D. Smith, Jr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1401-CR-31
Criminal. Dismisses appeal over whether Smith’s pretrial and earned credit time was properly awarded by the Department of Correction because the record is inadequate to make a determination.

Ronald Buttermore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1309-CR-472
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Raven McGinty v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A05-1310- CR-500
Criminal. Affirms 45-year sentence for multiple felony convictions of child molestation and other sex crimes.
 
Alma Stanbary v. Madison-Jefferson County Library (NFP)
39A01-1312-CT-537
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the library.

Jeremiah Workman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1312-CR-1020
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Friday.7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline Friday.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT