ILNews

Opinions March 10, 2014

March 10, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court posted the following opinion March 7 after IL deadline:
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of E.M. and El.M., E.M. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
45S03-1308-JT-557
Juvenile. Affirms in a 4-1 opinion termination of a father’s parental rights, holding that the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court’s order improperly reweighed the evidence and assigned more weight to the father’s attempts toward rehabilitation. Justice Loretta Rush wrote for the majority that after more than three years, the children needed permanency more than a final effort at family preservation. Justice Robert Rucker dissented, holding that there was no evidence children had ever been abused and the state failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that father’s parental rights should be terminated.

Monday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeff L. Ewing and Renee Ewing, Household Finance Corporation III v. U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Structured Asset Securities Corp., Series 2005-GEL4
50A03-1308-MF-327
Mortgage foreclosure. Finds summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank was appropriate. Also affirms U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss the Ewings’ supplemental complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Ewings argued the bank failed to act in good faith during the settlement discussions as required by the Alternative Dispute Resolution rules. The COA held the settlement talks were not a mediation, so the A.D.R. rules did not apply.  

Brian Bradley v. State of Indiana
69A04-1306-CR-268
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony dealing in marijuana. Finds that while one piece of evidence may not have established probable cause to search Bradley’s apartment, taken together and viewed collectively, the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of probable cause. Judge Patricia Riley dissented, arguing police made no effort to verify the information and did not include all material facts in the affidavit.

Jerimaine Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1307-CR-345
Criminal. Affirms Carter’s sentence to concurrent terms of 34 years for attempted murder as a Class A felony, with 32 years served at the Indiana Department of Correction and two years served on community corrections; one-and-a-half-years for resisting law enforcement as a Class D felony; and one year for carrying a handgun without a license as a Class A misdemeanor.

Darod A. Wheeler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1310-CR-462
Criminal. Vacates judgment and remands with instructions to reinstate the Nov. 13, 2012, sentencing order and modify it with the appropriate credit time. The November order included that Wheeler be required to serve three years of his previously suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction. The trial court had amended that order to four years and four months in the DOC. The trial court explained it amended the sentence in order to give Wheeler enough time to participate in a substance abuse program in the DOC.

 In the Matter of L.W. and J.W., Children in Need of Services, and J.W. (Father) and L.W. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1308-JC-700
Juvenile. Reverses the trial court’s adjudication of L.W. and J.W. as children in need of services. Finds that the Marion County Department of Child Services failed to meet its burden demonstrating that coercive intervention of the court was necessary.

Juan Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1307-CR-373
Criminal. Affirms conviction for battery as a Class A misdemeanor.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court did not post any opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not post any Indiana opinions 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