ILNews

Opinions Feb. 15, 2011

February 15, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
K.D., et al. Alleged to be C.H.I.N.S.; S.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, et al.
49A02-1004-JC-462
Juvenile. Reverses and remands juvenile court’s adjudication that the appellant-respondent’s stepchildren were children in need of services. Concludes that where, as here, one party admits to CHINS allegations while another denies them, due process entitles the contesting party to a fact-finding hearing and adjudication. The mother admitted to the allegations in the petition, but the stepfather denied the allegations and requested a fact-finding hearing.

Deborah J. Wise v. David T. Hays, et al.
76A03-1006-PL-323
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s grant of the sellers’ Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim after a buyer filed a complaint against the sellers of real estate for fraud and negligence. Concludes that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the sellers made fraudulent misrepresentations on the sales disclosure form required by statute.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of J.Y., an adult; D.R. v. Carey Services, Inc., Guardian of the Person of J.Y.
27A02-1005-GU-744
Guardianship. Affirms trial court’s designation of Carey Services, Inc. as guardian of J.Y.’s person. D.R. raised one issue for review: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it designated Carey as guardian of J.Y.’s person although Carey, a domestic nonprofit corporation, cannot serve as a domiciliary personal representative of a deceased person’s estate under Indiana law.

Aubrey Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-672
Criminal. Affirms conviction, after a bench trial, of battery, as a Class A misdemeanor.

Billy Ard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
37A04-1001-CR-103
Criminal. Reverses and remands trial court’s denial, in part, of Ard’s motion for earned credit time.
 
David A. Allen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-745
Criminal. Affirms conviction following a bench trial for welfare fraud as a Class C felony.
 
Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of A.L., et al.; E.L. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
29A04-1008-JT-540
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights as to her minor children, M.F.L., M.L., H.L., and A.L.
 
Stylian Kaltsas v. Paul Harry Kaltsas (NFP)
49A02-1006-DR-676
Civil. Affirms the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Paul Harry Kaltsas on Stylian Kaltsas’ motion to set aside the 1996 decree dissolving the parties’ marriage.
 
Tamikka S. Lucius v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1004-CR-251
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for causing death while operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.15 percent; operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated; and causing serious bodily injury while operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 percent.
 
The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. For the record no one could answer the equal protection / substantive due process challenge I issued in the first post below. The lawless and accountable only to power bureaucrats never did either. All who interface with the Indiana law examiners or JLAP be warned.

  2. Hi there I really need help with getting my old divorce case back into court - I am still paying support on a 24 year old who has not been in school since age 16 - now living independent. My visitation with my 14 year old has never been modified; however, when convenient for her I can have him... I am paying past balance from over due support, yet earn several thousand dollars less. I would contact my original attorney but he basically molest me multiple times in Indy when I would visit.. Todd Woodmansee - I had just came out and had know idea what to do... I have heard he no longer practices. Please help1

  3. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  4. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  5. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

ADVERTISEMENT