ILNews

Opinions May 22, 2014

May 22, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Yellowbook Inc. f/k/a Yellow Book Sales and Distribution Company, Inc. v. Central Indiana Cooling and Heating, Inc. and Lawrence E. Stone a/k/a Larry Stone
30A05-1311-CC-561
Civil collection. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands with instructions. The trial court erred when it concluded that Yellow Book failed to credit certain Central Indiana Cooling and Heating payments under Contracts 1 and 2; Contract 3 was induced by fraud and is rescinded; and Yellow Book is entitled to pre-judgment interest and reasonable attorney fees for amounts owed under Contracts 1 and 2.

Maddox T. Macy v. State of Indiana
52A02-1309-CR-808
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Macy’s acts of opening the officer’s police car door and refusing to place her feet inside the car were not acts constituting forcible resistance.  

Julian Tuggle v. State of Indiana
49A05-1308-CR-413
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction. Tuggle’s Fourth Amendment rights and Article I, Section 11 rights were not violated. The evidence demonstrated that the detective acted lawfully and reasonably in seizing the bag of Tuggle’s clothing without a warrant.

Craig Bakari Thomas v. State of Indiana
71A04-1305-CR-256
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and one count of Class D felony sexual battery. Although the state committed prosecutorial misconduct in its first statement, that error was harmless. There was no misconduct related to the prosecutor’s second statement.

Robert R. Setree, II, and Beverly L. Setree v. River City Bank
10A01-1311-MF-485
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of River City Bank granting it the right to foreclose on the Setrees’ real estate. The principles of full faith and credit required the trial court to consider the judgments of a Kentucky court res judicata to the instant cause.

In the Matter of the Paternity of B.C., M.B. and N.S. v. J.C.
54A01-1309-JP-398
Juvenile. Reverses denial of guardians’ motion to correct error following an order on custody and parenting time in a paternity action filed by J.C. in Montgomery County, and denial of their motions in Marion County to correct error following the dismissal of their guardianship and adoption action. Because the petition for adoption and the paternity action were pending at the same time, the court in which the petition for adoption had been filed had exclusive jurisdiction over the custody of B.C. Accordingly, the Montgomery Circuit Court could not properly exercise jurisdiction to enter its July 5, 2013, order as the Marion Superior Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the custody of B.C., and the Marion Superior Court erred when it dismissed the guardianship and adoption proceedings.

Darren L. Sivley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1310-CR-399
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

Jeremy Riffert v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1310-CR-460
Criminal. Affirms 800-day sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator.

William A. Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1305-CR-259
Criminal. Affirms sentence for dealing in methamphetamine as a Class A felony.

Sylvester Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1310-CR-402
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class D felony criminal recklessness.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.S. (Minor Child), and T.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1309-JT-405
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating father’s parental rights.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: E.M.D., E.D., and S.D., (Minor Children), and S.D., (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

45A03-1310-JT-394
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Jerry L. Siers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1310-CR-888
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count of Class C felony child molesting and four counts of Class A misdemeanor tattooing a minor.

Larry Powell v. Vanessa Powell (NFP)
03A04-1308-DR-399
Domestic relation. Affirms division of assets in the dissolution of the Powells’ marriage.

David W. Reed v. Jennifer Reed (NFP)
82A01-1309-DR-411
Domestic relation. Affirms award of primary physical custody of the two minor sons to mother.

Thomas H. Fuller, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1307-CR-336
Criminal. Affirms order Fuller serve his entire previously suspended sentence following a violation of terms of work release.

Megan M. Hatzell v. Tyler A. Hatzell (NFP)
38A02-1309-DR-820
Domestic relation. Affirms custody modification order granting temporary custody of three minor daughters to their father.

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. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT