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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT