ILNews

Opinions Feb. 21, 2011

February 21, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joshua Burke v. State of Indiana
49A02-1006-CR-660
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary. Indiana Code Section 35-43-2-1(1)(B)(ii), which enhances burglary from a Class C felony to Class B felony if the building or structure burgled is used for religious worship, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or Article 1, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution.

Sheree Demming v. Cheryl Underwood and Kenneth Kinney
53A01-1005-PL-252
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for Underwood and Kinney on Demming’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud, as well as her request for the imposition of a constructive trust. The designated evidentiary materials create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Demming exercised sufficient control over Underwood’s activities to support the existence of an agency relationship and whether Underwood breached a common law fiduciary duty owed to Demming. Remands for further proceedings.

Jammy Daniels v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1006-PC-359
Post conviction. Reverses decision to decline to vacate Daniels’ habitual-offender sentencing enhancements. Remands for re-sentencing.

Donald Baker III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-349
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanors battery and trespass.

Jimmy Vance v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (NFP)
31A04-1007-CC-501
Civil collections. Affirms judgment ordering Vance to pay Caesars Entertainment $75,000, money advanced to him from his established line of credit to gamble at the casino.

Joe E. Smitson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1004-CR-248
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanors operating a vehicle while intoxicated and operating a vehicle with a BAC of 0.08 or greater, which were later enhanced to Class D felonies after Smitson pleaded guilty to felony enhancements after he was convicted.

Kenneth Bradley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1009-CR-595
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and execution of remainder of suspended sentence.

Juan Stallworth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1007-CR-401
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies battery and intimidation and Class A misdemeanors criminal recklessness and driving while suspended.

Rick Delon v. Timothy Rallings, et al. (NFP)
34A04-1006-PL-355
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of the Rallings on their complaint for breach of contract in the sale of residential real estate.

Eric Welch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1007-CR-893
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 71-year sentence for four counts of Class A child molesting, three counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor, and Class A misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of T.G.; P.D.G. v. IDCS, Vanderburgh County Office (NFP)
82A05-1007-JT-465
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Paternity of W.H.; S.S. v. D.L.H. (NFP)
35A02-1008-JP-987
Juvenile. Dismisses appeal by S.S. of trial court’s finding that there exists a preset order for college expenses for his child and the mother has the right to file for amendment of that order.

Adoption of T.L.; D.F., K.F. v. M.J. (NFP)
49A04-1005-AD-310
Adoption. Affirms denial of D.F. and K.F.’s cross-petition for adoption of T.L. and grant of the petition for adoption filed by T.L.’s half brother.

Duane Walters v. Home Bank, S.B., et al. (NFP)
55A01-1005-MF-193
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses judgment of foreclosure and remands for further proceedings. Affirms the partial summary judgment upon the note borrowing money from Home Bank.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.J. and H.J.; H.A. v. IDCS (NFP)
64A03-1007-JT-358
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Scott Malott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A04-1006-CR-356
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for murder and Class B felony confinement.

Randall Spears v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-726
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT