ILNews

Opinions July 29, 2011

July 29, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Don Harley v. State of Indiana
20A03-1012-PC-630
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands for a new trial. Harley’s trial attorney was ineffective when she failed to inform the trial court that Harley’s only income consisted of Supplemental Security Income.

U.S. Bank National Association v. Ethyl R. Seeley, et al.
21A04-1102-MF-84
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms entry of summary judgment in favor of Clarence and Pamela Davidson in the bank’s suit to foreclose on certain real property owned by them. The designated evidence establishes that the parties understood the Oct. 8, 1999, payment to be a final payment on the agreement, terminating it, which obligated Firstar to release the mortgage.

Derric Price v. Lake County Board of Elections and Registration
45A03-1103-PL-128
Civil plenary. Affirms ruling by the election board that Price was ineligible to appear on the 2011 primary ballot as a Democratic candidate for the mayor of Gary because he did not meet the one-year residency requirement. There is sufficient evidence to support that ruling.

Kenneth Kelly v. State of Indiana
30A04-1006-PC-408
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court erred in summarily denying Kelly’s petition as allegations by Kelly alleging ineffective trial counsel raise issues of possible merit. Remands for further proceedings.

David L. Stalker v. Mary C. Pierce
61A04-1008-GU-562
Guardianship. Reverses approval of Pierce’s final accounting and the denial of Stalker’s request for money damages. Pierce breached her fiduciary duty to protect, preserve, and properly manage Stalker’s property. She also breached her fiduciary duty of loyalty. Stalker is also entitled to damages as a result of Pierce violating his due process rights. Remands for a determination of Stalker’s harm and award of damages.

A.T. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1012-JV-1394
Juvenile. Affirms ordering wardship of A.T. to the department of correction for murder pursuant to both indeterminate and determinate sentences. The juvenile court did not err in awarding wardship of him to the DOC under a determinate sentence pursuant to Indiana Code 31-37-19-9.

William T. Springer v. State of Indiana
92A05-1101-PC-16
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Springer demonstrated at least a reasonable probability that a hypothetical reasonable defendant would have elected to go to trial if properly advised instead of plead guilty.

Paternity of W.C.; P.S. v. W.C.
82A04-1008-JP-496
Juvenile. Reverses order suspending mother’s parenting time and any other contact with her minor child. The trial court abused its discretion in doing so because the father failed to present evidence justifying the suspension of the mother’s parenting time. Remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.S., et al.; A.S. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
48A04-1011-JT-731
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of H.W. & S.W.; A.W. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
17A04-1102-JT-57
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Kristina L. Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1102-CR-37
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony neglect of a dependent.

Rachel Mosco v. Ind. Family and Social Services (NFP)
43A05-1102-MI-69
Miscellaneous. Reverses dismissal of petition for judicial review.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of S.M.; M.M. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
20A03-1101-JT-3
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Richard Spradlin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1012-CR-764
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Oswaldo Quizaman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1010-CR-712
Criminal. Affirms sentence of 40 years on each on the two counts of Class A felony dealing cocaine and one count of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine, but reverses and remands to revise his sentences to run concurrently.

Earnest Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1012-CR-671
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of B.B.; L.B. and D.W. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
79A02-1012-JT-1372
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of R.P.; R.P. and M.P. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
20A03-1101-JT-15
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Billy Lee McKeehan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1012-CR-666
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Stephen J. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A04-1009-PC-557
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

David Brown v. Brandi Brown Wittmer (NFP)
64A04-1012-DR-749
Domestic relation. Affirms in part and reverses in part the final order in the dissolution of the Browns’ marriage. Remands for further proceedings.

Matthew D. Rozinski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1010-CR-640
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony attempted murder, three counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, and Class D felonies domestic battery, strangulation, criminal recklessness, and three counts of pointing a handgun.

Richard Sullivan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-CR-1195
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

Boyer Corp. Excavating v. Sheila Forbes (NFP)
18A02-1009-CT-1078
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Forbes in a suit seeking to recover an invoice for the use of the Boyer Corp.’s equipment by a laid-off employee.

Jesse J. Harris, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1009-CR-1068
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for felony murder and two counts of Class A felony attempted murder.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. 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.

  2. 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!

  3. 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?

  4. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  5. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

ADVERTISEMENT