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certain Central Indiana Cooling and Heating payments under Contracts 1 and 2; Contract 3 was induced by fraud and is rescinded; and Yellow Book is entitled to pre-judgment interest and reasonable attorney fees for amounts owed under Contracts 1 and 2.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

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