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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT