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. 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