Opinions Aug. 18, 2014

August 18, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Linda D. McIntire, and those similarly situated v. Franklin Township Community School Corporation
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the school corporation on McIntire’s lawsuit challenging certain fees charged to students in high school. The trial court erred in concluding her claim was subject to the notice requirements of the Indiana Tort Claims Act, but affirms because McIntire may not maintain a claim for monetary damages under Article I, Section 8 of the Indiana Constitution.

In re: The 2011 Marion County Tax Sale, Floor-Essence, LLC v. Marion County Auditor and Marion County Treasurer
Miscellaneous. Affirms judgment in favor of county officials that tax sale deeds be issued from the sale of property owned by Floor-Essence LLC. The auditor substantially complied with the statutes governing the notices and that the manner of service was reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise Floor-Essence of the pendency of the action and afford it an opportunity to object.

Efren Mendoza-Vargas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance and Class D felony possession of marijuana.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.E., Minor Child, JY.E., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of father’s parental rights.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: C.C. III (Minor Child) and C.C. II (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating father’s parental rights.

Anthony D. Dunn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms order revoking community corrections placement and committing Dunn to the Department of Correction for the remainder of his sentence. Remands for correction of mathematical error in the calculation of credit time.

Prince Santiago v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

William Hess v. C.A.D., C.N.D., John Doe, Jane Doe (NFP)
Civil tort. Affirms ruling that Hess is liable to C.A.D., C.N.D., and their parents for damages resulting in emotional distress, counseling expenses and lost wages after Hess molested the juveniles.

Craig Sampson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting.

Jim Edsall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms in part the denial of Edsall’s petition for post-conviction relief, Finds summary denial was improper on the issue of the validity of his guilty plea. The failure to address this issue requires remand for determination of whether he entered into his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?