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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT