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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT