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

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