ILNews

Opinions Nov. 5, 2013

November 5, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Jason Wilson v. Kelly (Wilson) Myers
71S03-1305-DR-399
Domestic relation. Reverses modification of custody. Finds an abuse of discretion in the way this modification was carried out and ordered as it never mentioned whether the modification was in the best interest of the children or noted any substantial change in any of the factors enumerated in I.C. 31-17-2-8. Orders an evidentiary hearing and inquiry into in-camera interviews. Since the two children have already been pulled from their Indiana school system and are attending school in Michigan, this status quo should continue until further order of the court as to minimize further disruption to the kids.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Heather Herren v. Jerry Dishman
18A04-1304-SC-162
Small claims. Affirms an order of replevin returning custody of a dog to Jerry Dishman, after Heather Herren obtained an out-of-state protective order granting her custody and control of any animal owned, possessed, kept or held as a pet by either party. The small claims court erred in refusing to accord full faith and credit to the North Carolina protective order, but because Herren neither owned nor possessed the dog at the time the protective order was issued, she was not entitled to custody.

Andrew Wann v. State of Indiana
32A01-1303-CR-123
Criminal. Affirms order requiring Andrew Wann to serve 90 days of a suspended 365-day sentence for conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana after a probationary urinalysis tested positive. The panel rejected Wann’s arguments that the urinalysis report was admitted in violation of his due process rights and that the court imposed a sentence that contravened statutory authority because time served or credited in jail or on probation exceeded 365 days.

Ritchie Hodges v. State of Indiana
06A01-1210-CR-466
Criminal. Reverses trial court order dismissing a claim for post-conviction relief from the revocation of a conditional release to placement in community corrections. The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at a hearing to revoke placement is a claim that conditional release was unlawfully revoked, and therefore subject to a claim under Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(a)(5).

State of Indiana v. William Gilbert
49A05-1303-CR-140
Criminal. Reverses suppression of evidence in a drunken-driving case in which a motorist was taken to a roll-call station where a breath test was administered. Police had probable cause to seize Gilbert after he allegedly ran a stop sign and police smelled alcohol and observed him stumble as he exited his vehicle. His rights under the Fourth Amendment therefore were not violated, the panel ruled.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.L. & D.L. (Minor Children) and K.M., (Mother) & D.L.,(Father) v, The Indiana Department of Child Services
85A02-1304-JT-308
Termination of parental rights. Affirms trial court termination order for mother and father, concluding there is clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s findings and the court’s ultimate determination that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the children’s removal or the reasons for placement outside the home will not be remedied.

D.B., et al., v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, Department of Workforce Development, and Anderson Transit System, Inc.
93A02-1301-EX-71
Civil. Affirms review board’s denial of school bus drivers’ application for unemployment compensation. Rules the board did not interpret the vacation provisions of Indiana Code Section 22-4-3-5, enacted in 2011 and 2012, too broadly. Presumes since the Legislature has held that mandatory vacation or shutdown period does not entitle employees to unemployment compensation, General Assembly did not  intend to change the common law beyond what its enactments and fair implications allow.  

Anthony E. Boyd v. WHTIV, Inc. and Walter Tarr, IV
49A05-1303-PL-107
Civil plenary. Reverses both the trial court’s denial of Boyd’s motion to correct error and its grant of summary judgment in favor of WHTIV and Tarr. Holds even though Boyd took 33 days to respond to WHTIV’s and Tarr’s motion for summary judgment, Trial Rule 6(E) allows for the extra time because the motion was delivered by mail. Also, since Boyd was denied additional time to complete discovery, the grant of summary judgment was premature.  

Dawn Willsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-1302-CR-117
Criminal. Affirms 16-year aggregate sentence following guilty plea to two counts of burglary, Class B felonies.

James W. Avery v. Cynthia L. (Avery) Howe (NFP)
18A05-1301-DR-28
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s dissolution decree awarding 60 percent of the marital estate to James Avery and 40 percent  to Cynthia (Avery) Howe.

A.C. James, Jr., v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1304-CR-108
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder and criminal recklessness, a Class D felony.

Brandon Titus v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1305-CR-460
Criminal. Reverses denial of Titus’s petition for modification of convictions and remands to the trial court for further action consistent with this opinion. Holds the trial court’s discretion was limited to determining if Titus had complied with the terms of the plea agreement. Therefore, the court abused its discretion when it considered whether Titus would or could pursue a career in law enforcement.  

Eric Powell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1303-CR-226
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Finds police officer’s request for Powell’s identification and search for outstanding arrest warrants were reasonable under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

The Indiana Tax Court did not submit any opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not submit any Indiana opinions 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. 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