ILNews

Opinions March 3, 2014

March 3, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joseph and M. Carmen Wysocki v. Barbara A. and William T. Johnson, both individually and as Trustees of the Barbara A. Johnson Living Trust
45A03-1309-CT-385
Civil tort. Affirms denial of the Wysockis’ request for attorney fees and additional damages under the Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act. The Wysockis were not victims of the criminal offense of fraud because the Johnsons were not charged with that crime in relation to the sale of the house, much less convicted of it in a court of law. In the absence of such a conviction, the CVRA does not apply.

CBR Event Decorators, Inc., Gregory Rankin, Robert Cochrane and John Bales v. Todd M. Gates
49A02-1302-CT-159
Civil tort. Affirms in part and reverses in part. Concludes shareholders Rankin, Cochrane and Bales are not personally liable for the attorney fees on the wrongful stop payment claim as this claim was only pled against CBR. The ex parte order requiring deposit of $1 million with the trial court clerk was not reversible error.

Shearece M. Love v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1308-CR-400
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

In Re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.D. and J.D.: D.H. (Mother) and J.P.D. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

18A02-1307-JT-657
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Suzanne Throgmartin v. Wilson S. Stober and Christopher E. Clark (NFP)
49A02-1307-CT-656
Civil tort. Reverses order granting Stober’s and Clark’s motion for summary judgment and denial of Throgmartin’s motion to correct error pertaining to the summary judgment entered on her legal malpractice claim.

Cornell Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1308-CR-321
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance and Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.C., Minor Child, and his Father, M.C., M.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

49A02-1308-JT-671
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Timothy J. Tkachik v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1308-CR-417
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class A felony neglect of a dependent.

Dawn Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1308-CR-711
Criminal. Affirms convictions of 11 counts of Class D felony counterfeiting.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT