ILNews

Opinions Aug. 20, 2013

August 20, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Carl J. Brandenburg v. State of Indiana
40A04-1301-CR-23
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation for failure to pay child support after conviction of a Class C felony charge of non-support of a dependent child, but remands to the trial court for a recalculation of the arrearage. The court found that Brandenburg’s daughter had turned 21 before he was charged, and the state acknowledged uncertainty about the ruling that the arrearage was $17,795.05, rather than an amount closer to $10,000, as Brandenburg claims.

Gregory Johnson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1301-CR-28
Criminal. Affirms conviction of misdemeanor possession of marijuana resulting from a police officer’s stop of a vehicle that he believed may have been in violation of the Indiana Window Tint Statute, I.C. 9-19-19-4. The panel held that the stop did not violate the U.S. or Indiana constitutions and that the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence resulting from the stop.

Deborah D. Minnich v. William B. Minnich (NFP)
57A03-1303-DR-92
Divorce. Affirms the denial of Deborah Minnich’s request for an extension of time to complete the refinancing transaction. In her dissent, Judge Nancy Vaidik argues the trial court should have treated the wife’s motion as a Trial Rule 60(B) motion that would have enabled her to conduct discovery and present evidence. Consequently, the COA should have reversed the denial of the wife’s motion and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

City of Bloomington v. Cheryl Underwood (NFP)
53A01-1212-OV-577
Ordinance Violation. Affirms grant of summary judgment to Underwood on the city’s ordinance violation complaint concerning her rental properties.  

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent Child Relationship of: D.W., Minor Child, D.C., Father v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A05-1208-JT-425
Juvenile. Affirms termination of D.C.’s (father) parental rights to his son, D.W.  

Hoosier Enterprises VII, LLC v. Diamond Vending, Inc. (NFP)
45A04-1303-SC-105
Small Claims. Affirms $6,000 judgment against Hoosier Enterprises VII for breach of contract.

Debra Barrett v. Katie Patton (NFP)
54A01-1302-CT-74
Civil Tort. Dismisses Barrett’s appeal of the trial court’s order to deny her “Trial Rule (60)(B) Motion to Set Aside Judgment of Dismissal and Motion to Substitute Party Pursuant to Trial Rule 25(D)(2). Rules the COA lacks jurisdiction because Barrett is deceased and no substitution has been made.   

Joyce Ann Hawkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1301-PC-47
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2013/august/08201302mgr.pdf
Post Conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief petition, finding Hawkins has not met the requirements for newly discovered evidence that would entitle her to a new trial.

Janyer Pinto v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A05-1301-CR-9
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator.  

NFN Valance v. Brandy L. Valance (NFP)
17A03-1209-PO-380
Protection Order. Affirms issuance of a protective order against NFN Valance.  

Akeem Turner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1302-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of Turner’s probation and order for him to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence.  

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court released no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals released no Indiana decisions by 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