Opinions June 13, 2013

June 13, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Re: the Name Change of Jane Doe, Petitioner, Mary Doe, a Minor, and Baby Doe, a Minor
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of mother Jane Doe’s petition to change her and her children’s names without publishing notice of the change based on the evidence in the record and current law. Mother may be able to protect some information from public record by going through Administrative Rule 9, but she did not choose to do so.

Anthony J. Iemma, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Successor by Merger with Bank One, N.A.

Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses and remands with instructions that the court vacate its order setting aside the tax deeds in Cause No. 41 and its grant of summary judgment and decree of foreclosure in Cause No. 188. LRB is the owner of the two lots in question and there is no longer any basis for the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and foreclosure in favor of Chase in Cause No. 188.

A.P. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and UGN, Inc. (NFP)
Agency action. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

Deborah K. Wagner as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Harry L. Tillman v. Jeffrey L. Finney as Guardian of the Person and Estate of R. Virginia Tillman (NFP)
Guardianship. Affirms order enforcing a prenuptial provision for spousal support upon petition by Finney. Remands for clarification of the payee of attorney fees.

Richard Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for one count each of Class A felonies conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine and dealing in methamphetamine (manufacturing).

Juan A. Gonzales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brandan Bellamy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

Stephen L. Gilmore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class C felony reckless homicide.

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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?