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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT