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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT