ILNews

Opinions Aug. 13, 2012

August 13, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions prior to IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

CSL Community Association, Inc. v. Clarence Ray Meador
40A01-1112-MI-579
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s grant of Meador’s motion for declaratory judgment that abrogated his obligation to pay homeowner’s association dues, finding that the evidence does not support the trial court’s conclusion that the changes in the community were so radical that the original purpose of the community and the deed restrictions were destroyed, and that the trial court erred in abrogating Meador’s obligation to pay dues and assessments.

Michael Thalheimer v. Ramon and Stacey Halum
49A02-1203-PL-167
Civil plenary. Affirms bench trial findings and judgment in favor of Halum, concluding that Thalheimer waived his claim that Halum spoilated evidence; that the economic loss doctrine did not preclude a negligence claim; and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Thalheimer’s work was poor quality. The court denied Halum’s claim for appellate attorney fees, holding that an award on the argument that the appeal was frivolous and in bad faith was not warranted.

E.J., a minor by his mother and father Victor and Lynell Jeffrey v. Paul Okolocha, M.D., Okolocha Medical Corp., and Okolocha Medical, Pain and Weight
45A03-1201-CT-15
Civil tort. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Okolocha, holding that the doctor owed no duty to adoptive parents to provide prenatal medical records because authorization to release the records did not satisfy elements of HIPPA or Indiana Code 16-39-1-4(1).

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Ma.J. and My.J.; and K.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services
27A02-1112-JT-1193
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Reverses termination of mother’s parental rights, concluding that the Department of Child Services failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the conditions resulting in children’s removal would not be remedied due to the mother’s progress over eight months in meeting areas of concern.

Dennis Feyka v. State of Indiana
49A02-1108-CR-703
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction of Class A felony child molesting, holding that a prosecutor’s references to Feyka’s failure to testify were not fundamental error and that there was sufficient evidence to support Feyka’s conviction.

Anastazia Schmid v. State of Indiana
79A04-1110-PC-618
Post conviction relief. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of petition for post-conviction relief, finding the appellant-defendant did not demonstrate counsels’ alleged errors were prejudicial.

Kendrice Dorsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A04-1109-PC-563
Criminal/post-conviction relief. Appeals trial court denial of post-conviction relief for Class A felony possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.

Elsa M. McLaughlin v. John C. Clark and Zore's, Inc. (NFP)

49A02-1109-CT-862
Civil tort. Affirms trial court ruling in favor of Clark.

Gene Hildebrandt v. Pepsi America a/k/a Globe Transport (NFP)
93A02-1111-EX-1033
Executive administrative/workers’ compensation. Affirms denial of application for adjustment of claim.

Warren Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
81A01-1201-CR-19
Criminal. Affirms trial court order of contempt of court.

Cleverly Lockhart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1204-CR-226
Criminal. Affirms trial court denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Marshall Jackson v. Beckie Bennett (NFP)
49A02-1112-MI-1199
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial for petition of writ of habeus corpus.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of D.Y.; M.Y. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1112-JT-1121
Juvenile/termination. Affirms trial court termination of parental rights.

Rachel Ann Ruch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A05-1202-CR-96
Criminal. Affirms trial court judgment for restitution from a conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of E.Y., Minor Child; A.Y., Mother v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A04-1112-JT-702
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jeffrey M. Steffen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A04-1110-CR-588
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four Class D felony counts of intimidation and theft.

Sherri Hillenburg and Dennis Hillenburg v. Paul D. Reeves and Norma J. Reeves Revocable Trust; Paul Reeves, Norma J. Reeves and John Reeves (NFP)
53A04-1111-PL-615
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of motion to correct error.


 

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT