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

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT