ILNews

Opinions May 29, 2013

May 29, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jill Finfrock a/k/a Jill Bastone v. Mark Finfrock
64A05-1209-DR-489
Domestic relation. Reverses award of attorney fees to Mark Finfrock. The award was based on perceived violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which is inapplicable because Finfrock’s arrearage of child support is not considered “debt” under the Act. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining Jill Bastone’s request to enter a qualified domestic relations order to attach to the entirety of her ex-husband’s retirement account. Remands for further proceedings.

Glenn Patrick Bradford v. State of Indiana

82A01-1203-PC-129
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Bradford’s evidence that he claimed was newly discovered did not require a new trial. The court did not err in denying his claims of ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel.

Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Society, Inc. v. Elizabeth Bridgewater o/b/o Alyssa Bridgewater
93A02-1202-EX-145
Agency action. Affirms administrative law judge’s finding that Alyssa Bridgewater, who has dietary restrictions, was reasonably accommodated by FACES when it suggested she bring a meal to an event; and that there is sufficient evidence to support the finding that FACES engaged in unlawful retaliation by expelling the Bridgewaters. Affirms the $2,500 granted to the Bridgewaters by the Indiana Civil Rights Commission for the retaliatory expulsion from the religious homeschooling organization. Reverses order that FACES post the ALJ’s decision on all websites on which they have communicated information regarding this case. Judge Bailey concurs in result.

Jesse Brown v. State of Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
41A01-1209-PL-404
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of DCS’ motion to dismiss Brown’s petition for judicial review and order that directed the agency to reimburse Brown $1,200 for the cost of preparing an agency record.

In the Matter of S.D.; J.B. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A05-1209-JC-488
Juvenile. Affirms determination S.D. is a child in need of services and the disposition ordered by the court.

B.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-JV-852
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication that B.B. committed what would be Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct if committed by an adult.

Philip R. Davis v. City of Fort Wayne (NFP)
02A03-1209-PL-385
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of Davis’ complaints for judicial review.

Leonard F. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A04-1206-PC-322
Post conviction. Reverses the post-conviction court’s judgment against Williams on his claim that his guilty plea was involuntary and remands for the post-conviction court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Affirms the post-conviction denial of Williams’ petition on his claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court did not post any 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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT