ILNews

Opinions Feb. 18, 2011

February 18, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.W.; M.W. v. I.D.C.S.
32A01-1007-JT-322
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights. Given the father’s efforts to comply with the amended plan and his release from incarceration soon after the hearing date, the trial court’s findings aren’t supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.W.; M.B. v. I.D.C.S.
32A01-1006-JT-382
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights. Given the Department of Child Services' agreement to give mother a second chance, her severe stroke, and her recent progress at stabilizing her life, the trial court’s findings aren’t supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Corvee, Inc. v. Mark French
84A04-1010-CC-696
Civil collections. Affirms the amount of attorney fees the trial court award Corvee in its successful collection action against French. There is no evidence that Corvee actually incurred $3,400 in attorney fees in attempting to collect the debt from French.

Steven Weinreb v. TR Developers, LLC, et al.
49A05-1003-CT-152
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Weinreb’s second Rule 60(b) motion alleging his signature on a loan guaranty was forged, negligence of his original attorney, and fraud on the part of an adverse party. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his second motion because all of his alleged grounds for relief were known or knowable at the time of his first Rule 60(B) motion. Remands for a determination of whether TR Developers is entitled to an award of appellate attorney fees.

Indiana Spine Group v. Handleman Company
93A02-1008-EX-932
Civil. Reverses dismissal of Indiana Spine Group’s application seeking full payment for being time barred by statute. The statute of limitations under the Indiana Worker's Compensation Act only apply to claims of compensation and ISG’s claim seeks recovery for pecuniary liability. Remands for further proceedings.  

Antonio Gonzalez Vazquez v. State of Indiana
09A05-1008-CR-466
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony criminal confinement, Class D felony stalking, and Class D felony theft. His appearance in jail clothes during the bench trial did not deny him due process. There was no error in the admission of the uncontested evidence.

Carolyn Boss v. State of Indiana
49A02-1002-CR-225
Criminal. Affirms denial of Boss’ motion to dismiss the charging information on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court properly denied the motion when it concluded that the enforcement of various city ordinances did not constitute punishment and that the current prosecution was therefore not a second prosecution for the same crime. Judge May concurs in result.

Elsor Matthews, Jr. v. State of Indiana
27A02-1003-PC-370
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Matthews hasn’t demonstrated the post-conviction court erred by determining he wasn’t prejudiced by any alleged error made by his trial or appellate counsel.

State of Indiana v. John Lovett
32A04-0910-CR-558
Criminal. Affirms on interlocutory appeal the pretrial order declaring certain proposed evidence from the state inadmissible as irrelevant or as hearsay. The state has not demonstrated the court’s order was an abuse of discretion.

James T. Bagby, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1001-CR-158
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

James Wilhelm Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A05-1006-PC-365
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Sarah Allen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1006-CR-460
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony conspiracy to commit burglary resulting in bodily injury.

Dennis Sanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-784
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a motor vehicle while a habitual traffic offender.

Holly Ann Lewis (Staggs) v. Diana Nicholson and Gary Staggs, Jr. (NFP)
53A01-1006-DR-316
Domestic relation. Reverses order granting paternal grandmother Nicholson visitation with Holly Staggs Lewis’ minor son.

Matthew A. Flores v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1007-CR-434
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Mary K. Layton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1006-CR-681
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft.

The Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT