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. 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