ILNews

Opinions Nov. 26, 2012

November 26, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of B.W. and C.W. (Minor Children); J.W. (Mother) B.W. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
33A04-1206-JT-289
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In Re the Paternity of G.J.C. and C.E.C.; J.T. v. N.R. and R.C. (NFP)
45A05-1205-JP-250
Juvenile. Reverses grant of mother’s motion for judgment on the evidence regarding paternity and remands for further proceedings.

Kellylee Sexton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A05-1204-CR-204
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony dealing in a controlled substance.

Kendrick Alexander v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1205-CR-213
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

N.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A01-1205-JV-245
Juvenile. Affirms order juvenile N.L. register as a sex offender.

Todd Shireman v. Todd Hensley and Jerry McKay d/b/a H&M Cattle Company (NFP)
29A04-1201-PL-40
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Shireman’s request for attorney fees under the general recovery statute and the grant of attorney fees to Shireman as a sanction for discovery violations.

Terry Wade v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1203-CR-85
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of a warrantless entry into Wade’s home.

Jonathan E. Perdew v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1112-CR-587
Criminal. Affirms Perdew’s convictions and aggregate eight-year sentence executed and eight years suspended for two counts of Class C felony child molesting, bur reverses a restitution order. Remands with instructions to modify the order to reflect the amount of restitution supported by the evidence.

Jack Marshall v. Beth Marshall (NFP)
27A05-1201-DR-52
Domestic relation. Affirms modification of Jack Marshall’s child support obligation and the treatment of extracurricular and extraordinary educational expenses, as well as the award of attorney fees to Beth Marshall.

J.P. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-JV-360
Juvenile. Reverses true finding of delinquency for resisting law enforcement.

Albert Van Meter and Krissy Van Meter v. United States Steel Corporation (NFP)
45A03-1204-CT-156
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment to U.S. Steel regarding its duty to Albert Van Meter under premises liability principles. Reverses in part the grant of summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether U.S. Steel assumed a liability to Van Meter and regarding breach and proximate cause. Remands for further proceedings.

Oluwasanmi Animashaun v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-CR-248
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion.
 

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 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT