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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT