Opinions July 11, 2014

July 11, 2014
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.
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
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.
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
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
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)
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)
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the Fearses’ motion for summary judgment.
Racxon Cruze McDowell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of father A.R.’s parental rights to D.R.

Damon Quarles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues