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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT