ILNews

Opinions June 7, 2013

June 7, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Supervised Admin. of the Estate of Cora E. Young, deceased; Terry Douthitt, Kelly Douthitt, and Kevin Douthitt v. Theodore R. Young
53A04-1301-EU-36
Estate, unsupervised. Affirms trial court’s finding that the proceeds of a sale of Cora Young’s property should be distributed to her second husband at her death. Since the property was a specific bequest under Young’s will and was sold before her death, it was adeemed by extinction and therefore the proceeds pass to the residuary beneficiary under her will, which is her second husband.

Gayle Fischer v. Michael and Noel Heymann

49A02-1204-PL-340
Civil plenary. Reverses $93,972.18 in damages to Fischer on her breach of contract claim and orders the court to enter a damage award of $117. Holds that the Heymanns committed an anticipatory breach of the purchase agreement on Feb. 10, 2006; that, given the evidence and the trial court’s findings, Fischer’s duty to mitigate arose on Feb. 11, 2006, when she learned of the Heymanns’ breach; and that Fischer failed to act with reasonable diligence to mitigate her damages at her first opportunity, which was no later than Feb. 18, 2006. The trial court acted within its discretion when it limited Fischer’s award for attorney fees and costs, but orders the court to enter an award for those fees commensurate with Fischer’s recovery on the merits and court costs. Judge Bradford dissents.

Jerome K. Jackson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1210-PC-535
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands for findings and conclusions on the failure to present an officer’s testimony regarding the validity of a license plate as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Reverses on issue of attorney’s failure to present evidence on the issue of whether children were present at the school at the time of Jackson’s arrest. If court finds the failure to present the officer’s testimony wasn’t ineffective assistance of counsel, directs Jackson receive a new trial on the issue of a statutory defense if the state so chooses.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: M.R. and L.P. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
38A04-1211-JT-573
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Cody Matthew Fritz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1212-CR-539
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a prior conviction.

James D. Brooks v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A03-1210-CR-454
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class D felony theft.

Larry C. Perry, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A03-1211-CR-456
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony invasion of privacy.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana 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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT