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

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT