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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT