ILNews

Opinions Oct. 12, 2011

October 12, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions from Indiana courts at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Julie Nunley, n/k/a Waldrath v. Jeremy A. Nunley
68A04-1105-DR-269
Domestic relation. Affirms that Jeremy Nunley is entitled to a reduction of his child support obligation due to the decrease in his income due to his incarceration for Class D felony nonsupport of a dependent. Declines to create an exception to the rules set forth in Clark and Lambert for individuals incarcerated for the crime of nonsupport of a dependent.

Todd A. Anderson v. Shauna Anderson
47A01-1104-DR-159
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Todd Anderson’s request to credit against his child support obligation Social Security benefits Shauna Anderson received on behalf of their child prior to Todd’s petition to modify child support. Periodic SSD payments should be treated the same as lump-sum SSD payments and may be applied retroactively to an existing arrearage. Remands with instructions.

Jonathon D. Douglas v. State of Indiana and Indiana Family & Social Services Admin., as Assignee of the Support Rights of Mechelle (Allen) McCrory
40A01-1009-DR-466
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Douglas’ petition to modify his child support obligation due to his incarceration for nonsupport of a dependent. Declines to create an exception to the rules set forth in Lambert and Clark. Holds that the trial court erred when it concluded that incarceration for nonsupport of a dependent child cannot amount to a change in circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms of an existing child support order unreasonable. Remands for further proceedings.  

In the Matter of the Involuntary Commitment of A.M.
82A01-1101-MH-29
Mental health. Affirms involuntary commitment to a mental health facility. Sufficient evidence supports that A.M. is gravely disabled.

Paul Fonner v. State of Indiana
55A05-1104-CR-175
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony theft and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. The trial court’s failure to properly and clearly advise Fonner of his right to testify resulted in the loss of his ability to make that waiver knowingly and intelligently. This error did not amount to a reversible error, and there is sufficient evidence to support his convictions.

Abby Allen and Walter Moore v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc.
49A02-1011-CT-1174
Civil tort. Reverses dismissal of Allen and Moore’s complaint pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6). Holds that the complaint is supported by more than 120 years of Indiana common law that a reasonable charge will be implied in a contract that does not otherwise specify a charge, and the complaint states a claim for breach of contract. Remands for further proceedings.

Robert Glispie v. State of Indiana
49A02-1102-CR-115
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor trespass. The state failed to prove an essential element of the offense.

Darik Morell, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony neglect of a dependent.

Steven Howey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1102-CR-125
Criminal. Affirms convictions of one count of Class A felony and two counts of Class B felony dealing in a schedule III controlled substance and one count of Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Jerramy Martin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1104-CR-297
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Luis Gonzales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1102-CR-73
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for 13 counts, including criminal confinement, intimidation, and sexual battery stemming from attacks of seven females. Reverses conviction of one count of Class B felony confinement and remands for further proceedings.

In the Paternity of P.B.; D.B. v. M.B. (NFP)
03A01-1012-JP-653
Juvenile. Affirms order granting father M.B. six hours of weekly unsupervised parenting time.

Julius A. Solis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1008-CR-419
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

Charles Ford v. Indiana Dept. of Correction, et al. (NFP)
46A04-1103-CT-115
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of tort complaint.

In the Paternity of A.G.L.; N.H. v. M.M. (NFP)
64A03-1103-JP-124
Juvenile. Affirms denial of motion to correct error challenging a child support order.

In the Matter of the Commitment of P.S.; P.S. v. Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center (NFP)
49A02-1107-MH-651
Mental health. Affirms involuntary commitment to mental health facility.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  2. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  3. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  4. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  5. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

ADVERTISEMENT