ILNews

Opinions Dec. 27, 2013

December 27, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Dawn Marie Adams v. James Gregory Adams
13-1636
Civil. Reverses District Court denial of creditor Dawn Marie Adams’ bankruptcy court claim against her former husband and business partner, James Gregory Adams. The bankruptcy court claims were previously adjudicated in state courts and the doctrine of issue preclusion prevented the bankruptcy court from rehearing those issues. Remanded for proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of M.S. (A Child Alleged in Need of Services), and K.S., (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
67A04-1305-JC-212
Juvenile. Affirms placement of M.S. with father who lives out-of-state and approval of the Department of Child Services’ petition to dismiss CHINS proceedings. The best interest of the child were served by placement with father and DCS’s efforts at reunifying the family were reasonable, Chief Judge Margret Robb wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Michael Barnes. Judge Elaine Brown concurred in a separate opinion that said M.S.’s interests would have been best served had DCS continued monitoring father’s compliance with court terms for a period of time.

State of Indiana v. Frank Greene
49A02-1303-PC-228
Post conviction. Affirms grant of post-conviction relief from a conviction of Class B felony criminal confinement and remands to the trial court with instructions to resentence Greene on the conviction as a Class D felony.  

In Re the Matter of R.K.: A Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services, A.K. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
31A01-1307-JC-310
Juvenile. Reverses juvenile court order awarding child custody to father, R.K. Sr., holding that the court abused its discretion by modifying custody without a formal evidentiary hearing. Vacates the modification order and remands for an evidentiary hearing on the modification petition.

DeWayne Nalls v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1306-CR-281
Criminal. Affirms concurrent sentences of 35 years for conviction of Class A felony attempted murder and 10 years for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, but vacates as illegal a separate five-year enhancement for the firearm charge.  

Cleverly Lockhart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1304-CR-384
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s denial of a petition to file a belated notice of appeal of four counts of child molesting and remands for proceedings.

Clarian Health Partners, Inc., d/b/a Methodist Hospital v. Jessica Sprunger, as next best friend of James Daniel Sprunger, Minor (NFP)
49A02-1211-CT-943
Civil tort/medical malpractice. Finds the trial court erred in denying Clarian’s motion to correct error after a jury award of $500,000 in favor of James Sprunger. The court also abused its discretion in instructing the jury. Remanded for proceedings.

Virginia Davis v. Indiana State Board of Nursing (NFP)
49A05-1304-PL-187
Civil plenary. Affirms Indiana State Board of Nursing’s license revocation.

In Re the Estate of Ruby Shuler Blankenbaker Botkins, Deceased, Mark Allen Shuler and David Lee Shuler v. Estate of George Botkins by Larry Botkins (NFP)
22A01-1307-ES-337
Estate. Affirms probate court’s entry of final accounting.

Jamar Perkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1306-CR-551
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

John D. May v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A05-1307-PC-320
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief from a conviction of Class C felony possession of methamphetamine while in possession of a firearm.

Darrell McNary v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1211-PC-607
Post conviction. Affirms denial of relief from a conviction of Class B felony dealing cocaine.

Brandon White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1304-CR-188
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony criminal recklessness.

Bonnie Shipley v. Anonymous Doctor A and Anonymous Hospital C (NFP)
40A04-1304-PL-184
Civil plenary/malpractice. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of Anonymous Doctor A and Anonymous Hospital C.

James E. Britt, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1304-CR-152
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Ron Rose v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1306-PC-272
Post conviction. Reverses denial of a petition for relief from a conviction of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct, holding that the court clearly erred in imposing a lifelong requirement that Ron Rose register as a sexually violent predator rather than as a sex offender. Rose proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he didn’t understand that aspect of his guilty plea, and he had specifically rejected that provision when discussing the plea agreement with his attorney beforehand. Remanded for proceedings.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. If real money was spent on this study, what a shame. And if some air-head professor tries to use this to advance a career, pity the poor student. I am approaching a time that i (and others around me) should be vigilant. I don't think I'm anywhere near there yet, but seeing the subject I was looking forward to something I might use to look for some benchmarks. When finally finding my way to the hidden questionnaire all I could say to myself was...what a joke. Those are open and obvious signs of any impaired lawyer (or non-lawyer, for that matter), And if one needs a checklist to discern those tell-tale signs of impairment at any age, one shouldn't be practicing law. Another reason I don't regret dropping my ABA membership some number of years ago.

  2. The case should have been spiked. Give the kid a break. He can serve and maybe die for Uncle Sam and can't have a drink? Wow. And they won't even let him defend himself. What a gross lack of prosecutorial oversight and judgment. WOW

  3. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  4. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  5. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

ADVERTISEMENT