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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT