Opinions May 24, 2013

May 24, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Rebirth Christian Academy Daycare, Inc. v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of the daycare’s motion to dissolve and/or modify the order in the First Amended Agreement Judgment between the daycare and FSSA. The trial court properly determined that Rebirth cannot employ LaSonda Carter pursuant to I.C. 12-17.2-6-14 despite an earlier trial court order restricting access to her criminal record.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.C., Et.C. & El.C.; S.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights. DCS presented sufficient evidence that the conditions resulting in the children’s removal were not likely to be remedied, and the findings support the court’s conclusion that termination was in the best interests of the children. There was a suitable plan in place for the care and treatment of the children.

Paul Hassfurther v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms denial of Hassfurther’s petition for judicial review. The evidence established probable cause that Hassfurther had been driving while intoxicated and that he knowingly refused to take a chemical test for intoxication.

Angela Duckworth v. Christopher R. Duckworth

Domestic relation. Affirms order modifying custody and child support in favor of father Christopher Duckworth. Mother did not submit a child support worksheet or other evidence of her income, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined her obligation based on the income the father assigned to her on his child support worksheet.

In Re The Paternity of J.T. and I.T., Minor Children; and In Re The Support of C.R.T., Minor Child; R.A.P., Mother v. C.D.T., Father
Juvenile. Affirms order granting sole legal and physical custody of the children to father. The evidence establishes a substantial change in the interrelationship of the parties, which allows for a modification of custody. Mother routinely denied father parenting time to which he was entitled.

Leo Dent, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for relief from judgment.

Dennis Meyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Post conviction. Affirms denial of amended petition for post-conviction relief.

K.L.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms placement in a youth facility for committing what would be Class D felony theft if committed by an adult.

Brant Construction, LLC; and Dune Harbor, LLC v. Circle R. Electric, Inc.; DeBoer Egolf Corp.; Auditor, Porter County, Indiana; First National Bank of Illinois; and Wachovia Financial Srvcs., Inc. (NFP)
Civil collection. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Circle R as against Brant, but affirms in favor of Circle R as against Dune Harbor. Remands for calculation of attorney fees.

Leona Peavler v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms order Peavler be incarcerated for violating the terms of her home detention by using methamphetamine.  

Henry (Hank) Eilts, Hank's Construction, and The G. Jackie Eilts Credit Shelter Trust v. Jeremy Wayman (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court ruling that found Eilts agreed to grant Wayman an easement on a farm as part of a project to fix a drainage issue.

Jeremy Roberts v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms revocation of community corrections placement.

In Re: The Petition for the Adoption of: R.J. and S.J. (Minor Children), R.J. and L.L. v. A.G. and B.G. (NFP)
Adoption. Affirms order denying mother’s motion to withdraw her consent to the adoption and declaring father’s motion to contest the adoption as untimely and his consent irrevocably implied.

Randall Dorsett v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony arson, murder and Class B felony robbery.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: J.N. (Minor Child), and JE.N. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

James M. Durkin, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A felony robbery.

Tony Monks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress.

A.R. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for committing two acts that would be Class A misdemeanor battery if committed by an adult.

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


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.