ILNews

Opinions July 23, 2013

July 23, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gared Holdings, LLC v. Best Bolt Products, Inc.
49A02-1210-PL-811
Civil plenary.  Affirms the trial court’s judgment on Gared’s claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose as those claims are supported by the evidence. The trial court erred in ruling that Best Bolt was not a merchant. Remands for the trial court to determine whether Best Bolt breached the implied warranty of merchantability, and if so, whether that alters the result of Best Bolt’s counterclaim. Chief Judge Robb concurs in separate opinion and dissents in part.

Kevin C. Stone v. Jennifer M. Stone
49A02-1210-DR-820
Domestic relation. The trial court did not err in refusing to approve the parties’ settlement agreement regarding child custody without receiving evidence regarding whether the agreement was in M.S.’s best interests, nor did it err in allowing mother to present evidence and argue that it was not in M.S.’s best interests. The trial court abused its discretion in denying father’s third continuance motion. Reverses and remands for a new hearing regarding custody of M.S. Also reverses that part of the dissolution decree ordering father to pay $5,000 towards mother’s attorney fees. The dissolution decree’s property division orders, as reflected in the settlement agreement, are affirmed.

In The Paternity of J.P.: P.M. (Mother) v. J.P. (Father) (NFP)
71A03-1303-JP-70
Juvenile. Affirms order finding mother in contempt of court.

Michael Walton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1212-CR-1013
Criminal. Reverses revocation of community corrections placement.

Julio Joel Delgado v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1206-CR-271
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony child molesting.

Anthony Shockley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1212-CR-957
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class C felony attempted robbery, but remands for correction of the abstract of judgment.

Dheeraj Gulati v. Twinkle Gujral (NFP)
29A02-1301-DR-144
Domestic relation. Affirms portion of the trial court’s decree of dissolution concerning international travel with the parties’ minor child E.G.
 
In the Matter of the Adoption of C.A.H., minor; J.N.E. v. L.M.H. (NFP)
49A02-1302-AD-129
Adoption. Affirms order denying the biological mother’s motion for relief of judgment to set aside an adoption decree in favor of L.M.H.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions 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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT