ILNews

Opinions Feb. 28, 2013

February 28, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Verdyer Clark v. State of Indiana
49A04-1202-CR-66
Criminal. Grants rehearing for clarification and affirms in all respects. Holds that the determination whether the age of a perpetrator is relevant to a child victim’s medical diagnosis or treatment is best left to another case.

David A. Turner v. Debbie L. Turner
85A02-1208-DR-704
Domestic relation. Reverses order denying David Turner’s petition to terminate child support for his 19-year-old child filed based on a change in Indiana Code 31-16-6-6. The trial court’s failure to follow the law as set forth by the Legislature was an abuse of discretion, and the court had no discretion to extend the father’s duty to pay child support beyond what is required by the law.

Alexander Nikolayev v. Natalia Nikolayev

49A05-1207-DR-372
Domestic relation. Affirms child support and property division orders in the Nikolayevs’ dissolution of marriage. The trial court did not err in ordering that the entire amount of Alexander Nikolayev’s salary and regular bonuses be treated as weekly gross income for the purposes of determining his child support obligation.

James E. Mefford v. State of Indiana

15A04-1208-CR-394
Criminal. Affirms 100-year aggregate sentence for Class A felony child molesting and Class B felony dealing in a schedule II controlled substance. Mefford failed to persuade the judges that his sentence is inappropriate.

Eagle Aircraft, Inc. v. Anthony Trojnar

64A04-1207-SC-386
Small claim. Affirms small claims judgment in favor of Trojnar and the denial in part of Eagle Aircraft’s motion to correct errors. The trial court’s ruling that Trojnar demonstrated extenuating circumstances was not clearly erroneous and Trojnar was not unjustly enriched by the court’s order.

Joseph E. Sanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1208-CR-372
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class D felony domestic battery and Class D felony escape.

Donald W. Campbell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A04-1109-CR-473
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for murder.

Jennifer Simpson v. Donald Simpson (NFP)
02A03-1204-DR-168
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Jennifer Simpson’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 60(B).

Loren H. Fry v. Terry L. Schroder and Robert C. Schroder, Individually and as beneficiaries and personal representatives of the Estate of David H. Schroder (NFP)
09A02-1206-CT-474
Civil tort. Affirms order denying Fry’s motion to stay the civil proceedings brought against him by the Schroders, individually and as beneficiaries and personal representatives of the estate.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of K.M. and J.H., Jr.: K.M., Mother of K.M. and J.H., Jr.; M.M., Father of K.M.; and J.H., Sr., Father of J.H., Jr. (NFP)
20A04-1206-JT-334
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Anthony Szuch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1208-CR-403
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Larry Collins, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1206-PC-319
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Frederick James Burton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1208-CR-426
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order that Burton serve entire previously suspended sentence, with credit for time served.

Bret Shaw v. Bryan C. Jerman (NFP)
49A02-1203-PL-164
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for Jerman and remands for further proceedings on Shaw’s lawsuit after he was denied insurance coverage for losses claimed after a burglary.

F.E. v. J.E. (NFP)
55A01-1207-DR-311
Domestic relation. Affirms in part, reverses in part the decree and property disposition order in the dissolution of marriage and remands for further proceedings.

F.G. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A04-1208-JV-415
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication that F.G. committed what would be Class D felony intimidation if committed by an adult.

Danny Clark v. State of Indiana (NFP)
59A01-1205-CR-203
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B misdemeanors public intoxication and disorderly conduct and remands for the trial court to apply any credit time earned to the suspended portion of Clark’s sentence. Judge Melissa May concurs in result.

In Re the Paternity of: B.V.L., S.B. v. B.L. (NFP)
48A02-1206-JP-491
Juvenile. Affirms grant of custody of B.V.L. to father B.L.

Jeramie Rangel v. State of Indiana (NFP)

27A05-1206-CR-308
Criminal. Affirms sentence following conviction of Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted 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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT