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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT