ILNews

Opinions April 15, 2011

April 15, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Heather Schrock v. Marion Schrock
20A03-1009-DR-484
Domestic relation. Vacates trial court’s belated order because it was made void by the instant appeal. Marion is able to proceed by cross-appeal to obtain appellate review of the issues raised in his motion to correct error as set forth in a footnote in Cavinder Elevators and in HomeEq. Reverses in part the dissolution order. Remands with instructions to determine whether the mistaken amounts included in the dissolution order were used to compute the award to Heather, what extent they were used, and revise the amount of the judgment to reflect the amount of liability stipulated by the parties. Remands for the trial court to determine the amount of any outstanding debt to Eagle, to modify the necessary amount of the final judgment, and enter an order or any entries necessary to revise the dissolution order consistent with this opinion and court’s findings on remand.

Thomas Battista v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1009-CR-516
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated.

James Mann v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1009-CR-1095
Criminal. Dismisses Mann’s appeal of the post-conviction court’s denial of his request for additional education credit time.

David Brockman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A04-1009-CR-588
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class C felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury.

Aaron D. Wilson v. Amber N. Wilson (NFP)
52A05-1008-DR-532
Domestic relation. Affirms division of marital estate.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of P.W., et al.; S.W. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
49A05-1010-JT-623
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

D.B. v. A.C. (NFP)
93A02-1010-EX-1172
Civil. Reverses order of the Full Worker’s Compensation Board which affirmed the dismissal of D.B.’s application for adjustment of claim. Remands with instructions.

William A. Pennington, III v. Convergence Receivables (NFP)
10A05-1007-CC-447
Civil collections. Affirms denial of Pennington’s motion for relief from judgment in a debt collection action commenced by Convergence Receivables.

Shawn T. Parker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A01-1008-CR-412
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order that Parker serve the balance of his executed sentence for each of the two separate convictions of nonsupport of a dependent child.

Lawrence Barrett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1010-CR-519
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for two convictions of Class D felony theft.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT