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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT