ILNews

Opinions Aug. 19, 2013

August 19, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Friday.

In Re the Matter of the Adoption of Minor Children; C.B.M. and C.R.M.: C.A.B. v. J.D.M. and K.L.M.
37S03-1303-AD-159
Adoption. Reverses trial court’s denial of mother’s motion to set aside the adoption of her children, C.B.M. and C.R.M. and remands with instructions to vacate the adoption decree. Rules the adoption was based solely on a termination of parental rights judgment against the mother. When the termination judgment was overturned on appeal, the mother then became entitled to having the adoption voided under Trial Rule 60(B)(7). States the reversal may have been avoided altogether, if the adoptive parents had done more than the bare minimum required by law and notified the mother of the adoption proceedings. The mother would have then been given the opportunity to appear in court and be heard.  

Indiana Court of Appeals
Derik A. Blocker and Tammi Blocker v. U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for the Certificateholders Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificate Series 2007-AHL3
45A03-1211-MF-479
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment to U.S. Bank, holding that no issues of material fact exist, and discards arguments that appeared to stem from “Redemptionist” movement theory claiming that debts could be settled through claims made to the United States Treasury.  

Ryan A. Osowski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A04-1211-CR-570
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence of 34 years for conviction of three counts of Class B felony child molesting.

Wayne A. Wasson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A03-1212-CR-530
Criminal. Affirms 31 1/2-year sentence for conviction of one count of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class C felony child molesting, three counts of Class A misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and one count Class D felony sexual battery. Remands for proper assessment of fees.

Waldo Lynn Jones, Jr., v. State of Indiana (NFP)

16A04-1301-CR-12
Criminal. Affirms 65-year executed sentence for conviction of murder.

Jerry Corbier and Stephanie Corbier v. William B. Nourse and Teresa L. Nourse (NFP)
29A04-1210-SC-545
Small claims. Affirms small claims court judgment in favor of William and Teresa Nourse and award of attorney’s fees in their favor.

Yoni Solis v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1212-CR-971
Criminal. Affirms 70-year executed sentence for conviction of four counts of Class A felony child molesting and three counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Mark A. Cook v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1210-CR-468
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted child molesting and Class C felony child molesting.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: X.M., Minor Child, A.B., Mother v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
29A02-1212-JT-961
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT