ILNews

Opinions Jan. 30, 2014

January 30, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re: The Matter of C.L., a Delinquent v. State of Indiana
05A04-1306-JV-319
Juvenile. Reverses adjudication that C.L. is delinquent for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor intimidation if committed by an adult. It was not established that C.L. committed intimidation for a prior lawful act. The evidence established that the alleged threats C.L. directed toward his grandfather were aimed at influencing future conduct, rather that in retaliation for past conduct. Judge Najam dissents.

Alexis Hutchison and Martha Farber, deceased and Trilogy Health Services, LLC, d/b/a Springhurst Health Campus
30A01-1307-SC-316
Small claim. Reverses judgment in favor of Springhurst Health Campus on its claim against Hutchinson and her now-deceased mother, Martha Farber, for payment of services provided to Farber while she was a resident at Springhurst. Hutchison agreed “to pay the Facility the full amount of the Resident’s income and resources that the Responsible Party/Agent controls or accesses,” and there was no evidence presented that she ever had access to or control of Farber’s income or resources from which to make payment to Springhurst. Remands for judgment to be entered in favor of Hutchinson.

Joel Stoffel v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Federal National Mortgage Association
27A02-1303-MF-299
Mortgage foreclosure.  Affirms the trial court’s rejection of Stoffel’s argument that Fannie Mae’s satisfaction of judgment prohibited Fannie Mae from introducing evidence to show the correct amount of the agreed judgment. Reverses the trial court’s calculation of the amount of the agreed judgment, which the trial court determined after considering inadmissible evidence. Considering only the admissible evidence, holds that the amount of Fannie Mae’s credit bid exceeded the amount of the agreed judgment by $374.58. Remands with instructions that the trial court enter judgment for Stoffel in the amount of $374.58.

Edward Lee Matthys v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1303-CR-217
Criminal. Affirms termination from county re-entry court program and placement in the Department of Correction.

Lincolnshire Healthcare Operations Company, LLC, Lincolnshire Healthcare Center, Inc., and Tender Loving Care Management, Inc. v. The Estate of Dora Berry, by Personal Representative Rita Claxton (NFP)
45A05-1306-CT-276
Civil tort. Reverses denial of Lincolnshire’s motion to compel arbitration. Remands for further proceedings.

In the Matter of the Adoption of T.G.: D.G. v. M.C. (NFP)
89A04-1305-AD-260
Adoption. Affirms order that father’s consent to adoption was not required.

Derrick Barbour v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1304-CR-144
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle with a BAC greater than or equal to 0.15 and an infraction for driving with a suspended license.

Joseph K. Buelna v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1305-CR-223
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A felony manufacturing methamphetamine.

John Wallace v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1306-CR-524
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

John McLaughlin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1305-CR-245
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of T.K. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (NFP)
49A02-1310-MH-878
Mental health. Affirms involuntary commitment to the VA Medical Center.

John Kryza v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A05-1305-CR-239
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanor OWI with an alcohol concentration equivalent of at least 0.08 grams but less than 0.15 grams of alcohol and Class C misdemeanor OWI.

Casey M. Jordan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1307-CR-355
Criminal. Affirms sentence for conviction for indirect contempt of court arising from the violation of a no-contact order.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT