ILNews

Opinions Feb. 21, 2014

February 21, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of: TLC, a Child Alleged to be a Delinquent Child v. State of Indiana
60A01-1308-JV-377
Juvenile. Affirms commitment of TLC to the Indiana Department of Correction. Finds TLC did not receive unequal treatment and his due process rights were not violated. Rules that the juvenile court had an adequate factual basis to conclude that TLC was guilty of what would be the crime of resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. Concludes the state sufficiently proved that TLC committed what would have been battery, a Class B misdemeanor, had it been committed by an adult.  

In the Matter of: S.G. and M.H. (Minor Children), Children Alleged to be Children in Need of Services, and P.G. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1307-JC-612
Juvenile. Affirms the judgment of the juvenile court. Finds the evidence was sufficient to support the Children in Need of Services adjudication.

Tommy Dawson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-584
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery resulting in bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor.

Timothy W. Woolum, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1306-CR-560
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of Woolum’s probation and order that he serve the remainder of his suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Ronrico J. Hatch v. Kathleen Brita (NFP)
02A05-1307-SC-374
Small claim. Affirms dismissal on grounds that the limitation period had passed.

Don Rudd v. Adam Compton (NFP)
29A04-1306-PL-294
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Rudd’s motion to correct error. Finds the trial court did not err in ordering Rudd to compensate Adam Compton for $24,684.29 in damages to his RV.

Patrick M. McVady v. Rebecka R. Pickett-McVady (NFP)
91A02-1308-DR-675
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Patrick McVady’s request to modify his court-ordered life insurance payments and reduce his child support payments.

John C. Oosta v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1307-CR-251
Criminal. Affirms Oosta’s conviction of two counts of child molesting, both Class C felonies, and his aggregate 12-year sentence.

The Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Tax Court released no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals released no Indiana opinions by 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