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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT