Opinions Aug. 20, 2013

August 20, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Carl J. Brandenburg v. State of Indiana
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
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)
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)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of D.C.’s (father) parental rights to his son, D.W.  

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

Debra Barrett v. Katie Patton (NFP)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator.  

NFN Valance v. Brandy L. Valance (NFP)
Protection Order. Affirms issuance of a protective order against NFN Valance.  

Akeem Turner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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.




Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.