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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT