ILNews

Opinions May 24, 2013

May 24, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Rebirth Christian Academy Daycare, Inc. v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration
49A04-1209-MI-467
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
29A02-1210-JT-833
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
26A01-1208-CR-350
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

29A02-1208-DR-669
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
46A05-1210-JP-544
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)

45A03-1208-CR-362
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for relief from judgment.

Dennis Meyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1206-PC-547
Post conviction. Affirms denial of amended petition for post-conviction relief.

K.L.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1211-JV-609
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)
64A03-1204-CC-159
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)

48A02-1209-CR-775
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)
85A02-1208-PL-627
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)

49A05-1211-CR-563
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)
02A03-1209-AD-403
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)

49A02-1208-CR-623
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)
08A02-1212-JT-1010
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

James M. Durkin, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1207-CR-314
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A felony robbery.

Tony Monks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1209-CR-405
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress.

A.R. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-JV-810
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.
 

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