ILNews

Opinions May 30, 2014

May 30, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In re the Paternity of V.A., (Minor Child), R.A. v. B.Y.
39A04-1310-JP-512
Juvenile. Affirms a special judge’s ruling that the judge who heard evidence remanded to the trial court from an earlier appeal should rule on the remanded issues, as required by Trial Rule 63(A). The panel rejected father R.A.’s objection claiming that his change-of-judge request trumps that rule, finding that the change-of-judge rule only applies prospectively, while Rule 63(A) operates retroactively to ensure that the remanded issues are considered by the judge who heard the evidence.

In Re: The Paternity of V.A., a Minor Child, R.A. Father v. B.Y., Mother
39A01-1307-JP-304
Juvenile. Affirms denial of a petition to modify custody and support, and a motion to correct error. A special judge appointed to hear the case ruled that he lacked jurisdiction, and the panel found that ruling was not an abuse of discretion.

Jose M. Santana v. State of Indiana
20A04-1302-CR-54
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life. Rules although the police officer began following the vehicle because he erroneously ran the wrong license plate number, he did not initiate the stop until he observed Santana fail to signal a turn at least 200 feet before turning.
 
Depuy Orthopaedics Inc. and, Johnson & Johnson v. Travis Brown, et al.
49A02-1304-CT-332
Civil tort. Reverses denial of Depuy’s and Johnson & Johnson’s motion to dismiss and remands to the trial court for dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens governed by Indiana Trial Rule 4.4(C). The litigation over defective hip replacement devices may be re-filed in Virginia or Mississippi, where plaintiffs underwent surgical implantation of the devices.

Joseph Fuentes v. State of Indiana
71A04-1310-CR-522
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony attempted murder, Class C felony possession of a handgun by a felon, Class D felony criminal recklessness and Class D felony resisting law enforcement. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that Fuentes had an assault rifle in his car when he fled police nor did the lower court commit fundamental error by encouraging the jury to continue deliberating after the jurors asked what they should do since they were split on one of the counts. Finally concludes the evidence was sufficient to establish Fuentes intended to kill a police officer.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: O.V., Minor Child, J.V., Mother v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
71A03-1312-JT-499
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of mother J.V.’s parental rights.

Brooke Tubbs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1309-CR-771
Criminal. Affirms 18-month executed sentence and convictions of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended.

Charlie S. Hines III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A05-1307-CR-362
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony dealing cocaine.

Thomas H. Kramer, Member and Manager of Domus Property Investments, LLC v. Mark Kramer, and Domus Property Investments, LLC (NFP)
71A04-1305-PL-261
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court ruling that Mark Kramer violated a non-compete clause with regard to one rental property and finds that he violated those terms with regard to three properties. Remands for total judgment of $333,156 in Thomas Kramer’s favor. Affirms denial of legal fees and prejudgment interest for Thomas Kramer.
 
In Re the Marriage of: Michelle Schlotterback and Terry Schlotterback, Terry Schlotterback v. Michelle Schlotterback (NFP)
57A05-1306-DR-321
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Terry Schlotterback’s motion to correct error relating to the division of the estate amassed during marriage and his motion to correct error with regard to the uninsured medical expenses of the parties’ children.
 
Dietrich D. Smith, Jr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1401-CR-31
Criminal. Dismisses appeal over whether Smith’s pretrial and earned credit time was properly awarded by the Department of Correction because the record is inadequate to make a determination.

Ronald Buttermore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1309-CR-472
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Raven McGinty v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A05-1310- CR-500
Criminal. Affirms 45-year sentence for multiple felony convictions of child molestation and other sex crimes.
 
Alma Stanbary v. Madison-Jefferson County Library (NFP)
39A01-1312-CT-537
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the library.

Jeremiah Workman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1312-CR-1020
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT