Opinions Feb. 28, 2013

February 28, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Verdyer Clark v. State of Indiana
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
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

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

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

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)
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class D felony domestic battery and Class D felony escape.

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

Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for murder.

Jennifer Simpson v. Donald Simpson (NFP)
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)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Anthony Szuch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

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

Frederick James Burton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms grant of custody of B.V.L. to father B.L.

Jeramie Rangel v. State of Indiana (NFP)

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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.