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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT