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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT