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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT