ILNews

Opinions April 14, 2014

April 14, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday:
In the Matter of: Anonymous
45S00-1301-DI-33
Discipline. Issues private reprimand to Lake County attorney who engaged in misconduct by making false or misleading communications regarding legal services and failing to include an office address in public communication. Respondent must pay $250 fee and one-half of the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

Monday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Ball State University v. Jennifer Irons, In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Irons, Wife, and Scott Irons, Husband
45A03-1307-DR-296
Domestic relation. Dismisses Ball State’s appeal of the order to release the college transcript of Jennifer Irons’ child. This appeal was not properly brought under Appellate Rule 14(A)(3). Denies Jennifer Irons’ request for appellate attorney fees. Judge Brown concurs in part and dissents in part.

Paula Rorer (Hubbard) v. William Shane Rorer (NFP)
87A04-1310-DR-494
Domestic relation. Affirms finding of indirect contempt against Hubbard in post-dissolution proceedings.

In re the Marriage of: Annette M. Huseman, f/k/a Annette M. Mantis v. Angelo N. Mantis (NFP)
45A04-1307-DR-351
Domestic relation. Reverses the trial court’s order denying mother’s motion to correct errors and the court’s April 23, 2013, order related to father’s total arrearage and the additional weekly amount he must pay toward his arrearage. Affirms the phase-in schedule of father’s modified support payments, and remands for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Judge Robb dissents.

Tyrone A. Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-PC-787
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jeremy J. Holden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1308-CR-436
Criminal. Affirms 10-year sentence for Class B felony armed robbery.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.J. and A.J. (Minor Children) and S.J. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A04-1309-JT-465
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Donald William Myers, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A03-1305-CR-173
Criminal. Reverses Myers’ four convictions of Class A felony attempted murder.

Jay Darland and Kathleen Darland v. Elizabeth Rupp (NFP)
06A04-1308-PL-403
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Rupp on the Darlands’ complaint seeking damages arising from a car accident.

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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT