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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT