ILNews

Opinions May 20, 2014

May 20, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Adoption of J.M.: J.P. and J.M. v. R.H. and R.H.
82A01-1309-AD-404
Adoption. Affirms trial court’s judgment that the natural parents’ consent was not necessary in the adoption of their child, J.M. Concludes the trial court did not err when it held a consent hearing which essentially terminated the rights of the natural parents. Also finds the trial court did consider the best interests of the child and that the trial court did not need to consider the natural parents’ fitness at the time of the consent hearing and again at the adoption hearing.  

Tamara Critser v. Chad L. Critser, Jr. (NFP)

40A01-1308-DR-369
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court order granting father Chad L. Critser Jr.’s petition for modification of custody and trial court order denying mother’s petition to relocate.

In Re: Nancy J. McMillen Testamentary Trust, Donna M. McMillen v. Thomas Kane (NFP)
71A03-1308-TR-334
Trust. Affirms trial court denial of Donna McMillen’s petition to remove Thomas Kane as a trustee of a testamentary trust.

Mark Blackburn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-833
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

Robert Beeler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-845
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder.

Clifton Brooks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A05-1306-CR-299
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while suspended for life.

Courtney Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1310-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms conviction and 60-year sentence for murder.

In re the Paternity of J.W.: A.P. (Mother) v. A.W. (Father) (NFP)

89A01-1312-JP-549
Juvenile. Reverses trial court denial of mother’s motion for relocation. Remands to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether relocation is in the child’s best interest, finding that mother met her burden to show a good faith and legitimate reason for relocating from Richmond to New York.

Zackery Reahard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1311-CR-1005
Criminal. Affirms convictions and aggregate 44-year sentence for conviction of Class A felony child molesting, Class B felony child molesting, Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor, Class C felony child molesting, and Class D felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Pritika Patel, Kala Patel v. Bhupen Ray, Amy Ray, Indiana Hospitality Real Estate & Management, LLC (NFP)
53A01-1311-PL-494
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court rulings and declines to enter judgment in favor or Pritika Patel on her wage claim or for unjust enrichment.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline Tuesday.
 

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