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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT