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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT