ILNews

Opinions April 14, 2011

April 14, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Diane Werner v. Gregory Werner

46A03-1008-DR-447
Domestic relation. Affirms order finding it would be in the children’s best interest for their father to be their primary physical custodian and awarding mother parenting time. Diane Werner waived her argument that the court used the wrong standard in determining whether to modify custody because she didn’t object at the custody hearing. The trial court’s findings are sufficient to support its judgment under the “best interests” standard. Judge Kirsch dissents.

Larry T. Bass v. State of Indiana

63A01-1007-CR-340
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and aggregate sentence of seven years with two years suspended for Class C felony child molesting and Class C felony attempted child molesting. Touching a child’s breasts or genitals isn’t required to sustain a child molesting conviction under I.C. Section 35-42-4-3(b). The trial court didn’t err by denying Bass’ motion for a directed verdict and he waived his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. There is no fundamental error on that issue.

Gloria Benefield v. State of Indiana
41A01-1006-PC-310
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Her trial counsel’s decision not to object to the testimony regarding Benefield’s knowledge as to whether she was a certified qualified medication aide or to Jury Instruction 6 on the definition of “defraud” wasn't ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Benefield fails to carry her burden to establish that her attorney’s failure to object to the jury instruction created prejudice sufficient to that required for a finding of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Warren Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-1007-CR-358
Criminal. Affirms trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Parks’ request to withdraw his guilty plea after he was sentenced for Class A misdemeanor check deception.

Judith Silverman and Morris Silverman v. Arden Johnson, et al. (NFP)

29A05-1006-PL-443
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Johnson, Southern Companies Inc. and Southern Pediatrics LLC on the Silvermans’ complaint alleging, among other things, fraud, securities violations, theft, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Leonard J. Laraway v. Cathy A. (Laraway) Fisher (NFP)
29A05-1007-DR-430
Domestic relation. Vacates trial court order that found Leonard Laraway in arrears for child support and college expenses pursuant to a dissolution settlement agreement and in contempt for failure to make such payments. Remands with instructions to provide more specific findings on this issue or base the determination regarding Laraway’s salary and child support obligation on a signed and verified child support obligation worksheet.

Dennis Meadows v. State of Indiana (NFP)

61A01-1009-CR-483
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class B felony burglary and one count of Class C felony burglary.

Paternity of T.B.; C.B. v. C.K. (NFP)
56A04-1008-JP-502
Juvenile. Affirms order which increased father C.K.’s parenting time with T.B. on a set schedule without imposing any restrictions on that parenting time.

Otis Chandler v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A05-1005-PC-340
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post conviction relief.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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