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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT