ILNews

Opinions July 11, 2014

July 11, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Thursday:

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Stephanie Sue Carlson v. CSX Transportation
13-1944 and 13-2054
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Chief Judge Richard Young.
Civil. Reinstates claims dismissed by the District Court for sexual discrimination and retaliation. Finds that the court erred by dismissing most of Carlson’s Title VII claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or were precluded by the Railway Labor Act. Declines to grant CSX’s cross-motion for summary judgment and remands for proceedings.

Indiana Supreme Court
In re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.W., a Minor Child, and His Mother, C.C.; K.W. v. Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc.
49S02-1407-JT-458
Juvenile. Vacates termination of mother C.C.’s parental rights to her son, K.W., holding that the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying a motion to continue the termination hearing for which the mother was absent because she had been jailed.
 

Friday's opinion
Indiana Court of Appeals

Scott A. Wright v. State of Indiana
45A05-1310-CR-526
Criminal. Vacates Wright’s conviction of Class A felony child molesting and remands for a new trial. Finds the trial court erred in replacing a juror during deliberations. The juror was the lone vote to acquit and had stopped deliberating but he was not prejudicing the other jurors nor impairing Wright’s right to a trial by jury. Moreover, the trial court failed to explain to the jury that the removal of the single juror was not because the court agreed or disagreed with the juror’s views.

A.H. v. C.E.G., on behalf of G.S.
49A05-1310-PO-525
Protective order. Reverses grant of injunction against A.H. under the Workforce Violence Restraining Orders Act, finding that because the case grows out of a labor dispute, it is governed by the Anti-Injunction Act and therefore the trial court had no jurisdiction to issue the injunction. Remands with instructions to dismiss C.E.G.’s petition without prejudice.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: Z.C., Minor Child, S.C., Mother v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
33A01-1310-JT-434
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights of mother S.C. to son Z.C. Holds DCS presented sufficient evidence that the conditions under which the child was removed from mother’s care would not be remedied and that termination was in the child’s best interests.

Drakkar R. Willis v. State of Indiana
49A02-1310-CR-854
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. The majority held that circumstantial evidence in the case was sufficient to affirm the conviction in light of the ruling in Meehan v. State, 7 N.E.3d 255 (Ind. 2014), in which DNA on a glove found at a crime scene was sufficient to support a burglary conviction. Dissenting Judge Michael Barnes found that the evidence against Willis wasn’t sufficient and that the ruling in Meehan doesn’t demand that tenets of the definition of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” be altered.

In the Matter of the Adoption of D.M.B., D.P.B. (Father) v. T.M.N. (Stepfather) (NFP)
53A01-1312-AD-547
Adoption. Affirms grant of stepfather’s petition of adoption.

Andrea M. Fears and Edwin G. Fears v. Charles W. Asxom and Peggy L. Axsom as Trustees of the Charles W. Axsom and Peggy L. Axsom Revocable Trust (NFP)
07A04-1305-PL-243
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the Fearses’ motion for summary judgment.
 
Racxon Cruze McDowell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1311-CR-492
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: D.R., Minor Child, and A.R., Father v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
79A04-1312-JT-614
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of father A.R.’s parental rights to D.R.

Damon Quarles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1306-CR-588
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for credit time not previously awarded.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions 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