ILNews

Opinions March 7, 2013

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

Indiana Supreme Court
In Re: Visitation M.L.B.: K.J.R. v. M.A.B.
41S01-1209-MI-556
Miscellaneous. Rules despite the trial court’s ample “best interests” findings, the lack of findings on the other three factors, both standing alone and as compounded by the extensive visitation awarded without those necessary findings, violates Mother’s fundamental right to direct M.L.B.’s upbringing. Remands for a new entry of findings and conclusions revealing the court’s consideration of all four McCune/K.I. factors, without a new hearing.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joseph Matheny v. State of Indiana
49A04-1207-CR-347
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony auto theft. The police officer did not violate Matheny’s constitutional rights by asking for his address, so there was no error in admitting his statement at trial. The trial court erred in refusing one of Matheny’s tendered jury instructions, but the error was harmless.

Marcus Willis v. State of Indiana

49A02-1208-CR-636
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. The state failed to prove a material element of criminal trespass within the meaning of I.C. 35-43-2-2(a)(1).

In Re The Matter of K.W. and B.W., Children in Need of Services: A.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

32A05-1210-JC-537
Juvenile. Affirms court’s approval of K.W. and B.W. relocating with maternal grandparents to Wisconsin after they were placed with the grandparents following being adjudicated as children in need of services.

Dale Hite v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A03-1208-CR-355
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class B felony resisting law enforcement and sentence.

Kenneth Hunter v. Deborah Goodrich and Paul Goodrich (NFP)
07A05-1205-GU-244
Guardianship. Affirms denial of the Hunters’ petition to remove the Goodriches as P.G.’s guardian and name them as P.G.’s successor guardians.

Q.P. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

79A02-1207-JV-609
Juvenile. Affirms order awarding wardship of Q.P. to the Indiana Department of Correction for housing in a correction facility for children.

Indiana Public Employee Retirement Fund (PERF) v. Robert O. Effner (NFP)
84A05-1208-MI-410
Miscellaneous. Reverses award of PERF benefits to Effner to a date more than four years before he applied for benefits. Remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Victor Ponce v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1208-PC-396
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Imani Clark v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1208-CR-630
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationshp of: A.A., S.T., and C.P.; and A.A. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1206-JT-511
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT