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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT