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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT