ILNews

Opinions June 26, 2013

June 26, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Michael D. Perkinson, Jr. v. Kay Char Perkinson
36S05-1206-DR-371
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court decision which prohibited the father from exercising any parenting time with his child and provided no means by which he could earn parenting time. Declares an agreement to forego parenting time in exchange for relief from child support void against public policy. The trial court’s prohibition against parenting time is not supported by the record.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Michael Alexander v. United States of America
12-2190
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Reverses Alexander’s malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The complaint for malicious prosecution sets forth enough plausible detail to provide adequate notice to the defendants and survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Concludes the IIED claim is timely and adequately states a claim.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Hamilton Heights School Corp. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Sherri K. Stepp, and The Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development
93A02-1210-EX-795
Agency action. Reverses decision by the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development finding Hamilton Heights School Corp. liable for unemployment benefits relating to the dismissal of Sherri Stepp. The notice of the in-person hearing given to the school corporation was inadequate in light of the procedural history of this matter together with the confusing and seemingly inconsistent information contained in the documentation issued by the Department of Workforce Development. Remands with instructions. Judge Riley dissents.

Sterlen Shane Keller v. State of Indiana
59A01-1206-CR-271
Criminal. Grants state’s petition for rehearing and affirms original opinion in all respects. Regardless of what Sterlen Keller did with Robert Collier’s checks after he took them – whether he put them in his garage or cashed them – he committed the offenses when he took the checks from Collier’s mailbox and from that point on he committed a single continuing act of theft.

Rachel Van Alstine v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
93A02-1301-EX-27
Agency action. Affirms denial of claim for unemployment benefits.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: K.W., Minor Child, and D.F., Father v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
82A04-1210-JT-523
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights to K.W.

Patrick Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
67A05-1210-CR-527
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Clarenda Love v. Bruce Love (NFP)
32A05-1207-DR-373
Domestic relation. Reverses property distribution order following the dissolution of the Loves’ marriage. Remands with instructions for the trial court to determine the distribution in accordance with the presumption of an equal division of marital property.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT