ILNews

Opinions March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of I.P., T.P. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc.
49S02-1402-JT-81
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights. Finds the procedure used violated the father T.P.’s due process rights. The magistrate who presided over the termination hearing resigned before reporting recommended findings and conclusions to the judge. Another magistrate, without holding a new evidentiary hearing, reviewed the record and reported recommended findings and conclusions to the judge, who ordered the mother’s parental rights terminated. Holds Trial Rule 63(A) is inapplicable.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of S.B., Ay.B., A.B. and K.G., K.G. v. Marion County Department of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc.
49S02-1402-JT-77
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights. Finds the procedure used violated parent K.G.’s due process rights. The magistrate who presided over the termination hearing resigned before reporting recommended findings and conclusions to the judge. Another magistrate, without holding a new evidentiary hearing, reviewed the record and reported recommended findings and conclusions to the judge, who ordered the mother’s parental rights terminated.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Adam Bigger v. State of Indiana
02A03-1308-CR-315
Criminal. Affirms conviction and 8-year sentence for Class C felony attempted robbery. Since Bigger did not raise the issue of the defense of abandonment or indicate his intent to rely on the defense at the trial court level, the issue is waived.

Brian Byrd v. State of Indiana
10A01-1309-IF-383
Infraction. Reverses judgment against Byrd for the civil infraction of speeding for driving 54 mph in a 30 mph zone. Finds there was a failure of proof as Byrd produced evidence that contradicted the prima facie speed allegation.

Donovan Ball v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1308-CR-714
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony criminal gang activity and Class A felony attempted murder.

Matthew Ramsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1308-CR-704
Criminal. Affirms revocation of work release placement and probation.

Jonah Long v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1308-CR-392
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Caleb J. Brubaker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A05-1310-CR-492
Criminal. Affirms conviction of resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor.

Robbie L. Hubbard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A05-1310-CR-512
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor conversion.

Bradley P. Burcham v. Nichole (Burcham) Fillmore (NFP)
49A04-1307-DR-347
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Burcham’s appeal of the denial of his petition to increase visitation consistent with the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT