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

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT