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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT