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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT