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

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