ILNews

Opinions Aug. 18, 2014

August 18, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Linda D. McIntire, and those similarly situated v. Franklin Township Community School Corporation
49A02-1401-PL-2
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
49A02-1311-MI-934
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)
20A03-1311-CR-430
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)
82A01-1401-JT-20
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)
82A01-1401-JT-39
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating father’s parental rights.

Anthony D. Dunn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1402-CR-99
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)
49A05-1312-CR-619
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

William Hess v. C.A.D., C.N.D., John Doe, Jane Doe (NFP)
20A03-1401-CT-35
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)
87A01-1312-CR-534
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting.

Jim Edsall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A05-1402-PC-51
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.
 

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT