ILNews

Opinions Oct. 10, 2013

October 10, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of E.T., D.T., L.T., and Y.T., Minor Children: M.T., v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services and Lake County Court Appointed Special Advocate
45A03-1302-JT-49
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights. The mother has not demonstrated that the trial court clearly erred when it determined that continuation of the parent-child relationship with the children poses a threat to their well-being. Nor has she shown that termination is not in the best interest of the children or that the court erred when it determined that adoption is a satisfactory plan following the terminations.

Kevin C. Stone v. Jennifer M. Stone
49A02-1210-DR-820
Domestic relation. Grants rehearing to acknowledge that father did file a reply brief in the case, but affirms original opinion in all respects, including that his supervised visitation argument is moot.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of C.W. (Minor Child), and J.W. (Mother), v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
26A01-1303-JT-113
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights. The mother has not shown that she was denied due process in the CHINS proceedings or termination proceedings. The DCS established by clear and convincing evidence the requisite elements to support the termination of parental rights.

Nathan and Deanna Ferguson v. Shiel Sexton Company, Inc., WR Dunkin & Son, Inc., Lynch, Harrison & Brumleve, Inc., et al.
29A05-1301-CT-8
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Poynter Sheet Metal Inc. on the issue of duty in the Fergusons’ negligence action. They sought damages for injuries Nathan Ferguson sustained in a construction accident. The Fergusons failed to establish the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.

Dustin Jack Gifford v. State of Indiana
40A05-1304-CR-197
Criminal. Reverses Class D felony conviction of possession of chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture a controlled substance. The state presented insufficient evidence to support the conviction.

John Einhorn and Roxanne Einhorn v. Scott Johnson, Gretchen Johnson, Purdue University Board of Trustees, et al.
50A03-1303-CT-93
Civil tort. Affirms in part and reverses in part summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the Einhorns’ complaint for damages alleging negligence. Because John Einhorn was not Purdue’s employee at the time of the accident, his negligence claim against Purdue is not barred by the exclusivity provision of the Worker’s Compensation Act. Purdue and 4-H Fair Association are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law under the Equine Activity Statute. The Johnsons are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because they did not know or have reason to know that the horse Clu had any dangerous propensities prior to the accident.

Coady Coyote Craddick v. Indiana Department of Correction (NFP)

52A02-1211-MI-942
Miscellaneous. Affirms dismissal of complaint against the DOC alleging it violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Indiana Constitution by classifying Craddick as a sex offender.

Fredrick D. McClure v. State of Indiana (NFP)

18A02-1302-CR-196
Criminal. Affirms trial court determination that McClure’s previously stayed sentence was eight years rather than four years.

Jason Hays v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A04-1303-CR-109
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony operating a vehicle with a controlled substance in blood causing death.

Joseph A. Kast v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1301-CR-35
Criminal. Affirms 65-year sentence for murder conviction.

Tabatha Murphy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A04-1302-CR-82
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon, Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Ryan Thomas Johnston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1212-CR-1014
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

David Roy Winters v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1302-CR-41
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A misdemeanor conversion.

In Re The Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of R.C. and M.C.: Ro.C. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1303-JT-194
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT