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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT