ILNews

Opinions Aug. 18, 2014

August 18, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Linda D. McIntire, and those similarly situated v. Franklin Township Community School Corporation
49A02-1401-PL-2
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the school corporation on McIntire’s lawsuit challenging certain fees charged to students in high school. The trial court erred in concluding her claim was subject to the notice requirements of the Indiana Tort Claims Act, but affirms because McIntire may not maintain a claim for monetary damages under Article I, Section 8 of the Indiana Constitution.

In re: The 2011 Marion County Tax Sale, Floor-Essence, LLC v. Marion County Auditor and Marion County Treasurer
49A02-1311-MI-934
Miscellaneous. Affirms judgment in favor of county officials that tax sale deeds be issued from the sale of property owned by Floor-Essence LLC. The auditor substantially complied with the statutes governing the notices and that the manner of service was reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise Floor-Essence of the pendency of the action and afford it an opportunity to object.

Efren Mendoza-Vargas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1311-CR-430
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance and Class D felony possession of marijuana.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.E., Minor Child, JY.E., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1401-JT-20
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of father’s parental rights.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: C.C. III (Minor Child) and C.C. II (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1401-JT-39
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating father’s parental rights.

Anthony D. Dunn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1402-CR-99
Criminal. Affirms order revoking community corrections placement and committing Dunn to the Department of Correction for the remainder of his sentence. Remands for correction of mathematical error in the calculation of credit time.

Prince Santiago v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1312-CR-619
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

William Hess v. C.A.D., C.N.D., John Doe, Jane Doe (NFP)
20A03-1401-CT-35
Civil tort. Affirms ruling that Hess is liable to C.A.D., C.N.D., and their parents for damages resulting in emotional distress, counseling expenses and lost wages after Hess molested the juveniles.

Craig Sampson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1312-CR-534
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting.

Jim Edsall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A05-1402-PC-51
Post conviction. Affirms in part the denial of Edsall’s petition for post-conviction relief, Finds summary denial was improper on the issue of the validity of his guilty plea. The failure to address this issue requires remand for determination of whether he entered into his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT