ILNews

Opinions Dec. 12, 2013

December 12, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Richard Eric Johnson v. Gillian Wheeler Johnson
49S05-1303-DR-199
Domestic relation. Affirms the trial court order with respect to the calculation of Gillian Johnson’s health insurance premium credit and application of Eric Johnson’s Social Security Retirement benefits. Summarily affirms the Court of Appeals as to the remaining issues. The trial court’s approach was appropriate in light of the flexibility afforded by the Indiana Child Support Guidelines.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Anthony Smith v. State of Indiana
49A05-1304-CR-195
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for knowingly violating a protective order. Smith was aware of the protective order and knew he could not contact his ex-girlfriend or come over to her home without the police present.

Charity Lindquist v. Cory Lindquist
23A04-1306-DR-277
Domestic relation. Affirms determination that Charity Lindquist was in contempt for denying Cory Lindquist his Christmas 2012 time. Reverses portion of order that determined the children were not allowed to spend any “one on one” unsupervised time with Charity’s boyfriend. There is no evidence that she is an unfit mother or that the boyfriend posed a danger or detriment to the children. Remands for the trial court to craft an order that will not deny Cory the opportunity to exercise additional parenting time in accordance with the guidelines, but also to permit the children to interact with Charity’s boyfriend on an unsupervised basis should she so desire, so long as Cory’s relationship with the children is not undermined or thwarted.

Paul D. Schoolman v. Tamzen L. Schoolman (NFP)
52A02-1304-DR-344
Domestic relation. Affirms distribution of property in dissolution of marriage.

Jacquelyn S. Johnson-Taefi v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and AME Cleaning Services, LLC (NFP)
93A02-1306-EX-484
Agency action. Affirms determination that Johnson-Taefi is ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Zachariah Brownie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1301-CR-3
Criminal. Judge Brown writes a dissent from the denial of a petition for rehearing, believing the court should reverse the probation revocation order and remand for a new hearing.

Joseph Rothell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1303-CR-225
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of a portion of Rothell’s previously suspended sentence.

Jeffrey Allen Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1304-CR-175
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery upon a law enforcement officer.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT