ILNews

Opinions June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Gwen E. Morgal-Henrich v. David Brian Henrich
46A05-1111-DR-645
Domestic relation. Affirms the trial court did not abuse its discretion by applying the equal division presumption in dividing the marital assets. Reverses trial court’s use of $390 per week as David Henrich’s weekly gross income for purposes of calculating child support. Remands for a recalculation and recommends the trial court uses an income averaging calculation due to his fluctuating income.

Cortney L. Schwartz v. Jodi S. Heeter
02A03-1109-DR-401
Domestic relation. Finds the entry of summary judgment against Schwartz on Heeter’s claim regarding the 2010 “true up” payment was an error. Construes the “true up” provision’s language in their child support agreement to require continued application of the 2009 guideline formula until Heeter properly moves for modification of child support. Affirms father’s payment for 2009 but reverses regarding his 2010 payment and remands for entry of an order consistent with this decision. Finds Heeter upon remand may not seek rulings from the trial court on her prior motions for modification of the support obligation. Judge Mathias concurs in part and dissents in part.

City of Indianapolis v. Rachel Buschman
49A02-1108-CT-782
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Buschman on the issue of the sufficiency of her tort claim notice. Holds that when a claimant’s notice contains a specific and definitive assessment of loss, his or her recovery is limited to the loss described in the original notice. If additional losses were discovered, the original notice should have been amended in a timely manner.

In Re The Matter of a Search Warrant Regarding the Following Real Estate, Sensient Flavors, LLC v. Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration
49A02-1109-MC-844
Miscellaneous criminal. Dismisses Sensient’s appeal of the issuance of an amended search warrant to search its Indianapolis facility. Sensient failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.

Dennis and Jeremy Cochran v. Zeroffos Hoffman and John Dye

15A01-1109-SC-00015
Small claim. Reverses judgment in favor of Hoffman and Dye in a dispute over parking on an easement. The easement does not prohibit parking as the small claims court ruled. Affirms decision not to award Jeremy Cochran damages after his car was towed.

Koko Win v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1111-CR-523
Criminal. Affirms four-year sentence with two years suspended to probation for Class C felony child molesting.

Robert Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1110-CR-553
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for murder.

Larry R. Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1111-CR-584
Criminal. Affirms 50-year sentence for 10 counts of Class A felony child molesting and five counts of Class C felony child molesting.
 

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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT