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. Some are above the law in Indiana. Some lined up with Lodges have controlled power in the state since the 1920s when the Klan ruled Indiana. Consider the comments at this post and note the international h.q. in Indianapolis. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/human-trafficking-rising-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/42468. Brave journalists need to take this child torturing, above the law and antimarriage cult on just like The Globe courageously took on Cardinal Law. Are there any brave Hoosier journalists?

  2. I am nearing 66 years old..... I have no interest in contacting anyone. All I need to have is a nationality....a REAL Birthday...... the place U was born...... my soul will never be at peace. I have lived my life without identity.... if anyone can help me please contact me.

  3. This is the dissent discussed in the comment below. See comments on that story for an amazing discussion of likely judicial corruption of some kind, the rejection of the rule of law at the very least. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774#comment

  4. That means much to me, thank you. My own communion, to which I came in my 30's from a protestant evangelical background, refuses to so affirm me, the Bishop's courtiers all saying, when it matters, that they defer to the state, and trust that the state would not be wrong as to me. (LIttle did I know that is the most common modernist catholic position on the state -- at least when the state acts consistent with the philosophy of the democrat party). I asked my RCC pastor to stand with me before the Examiners after they demanded that I disavow God's law on the record .... he refused, saying the Bishop would not allow it. I filed all of my file in the open in federal court so the Bishop's men could see what had been done ... they refused to look. (But the 7th Cir and federal judge Theresa Springmann gave me the honor of admission after so reading, even though ISC had denied me, rendering me a very rare bird). Such affirmation from a fellow believer as you have done here has been rare for me, and that dearth of solidarity, and the economic pain visited upon my wife and five children, have been the hardest part of the struggle. They did indeed banish me, for life, and so, in substance did the the Diocese, which treated me like a pariah, but thanks to this ezine ... and this is simply amazing to me .... because of this ezine I am not silenced. This ezine allowing us to speak to the corruption that the former chief "justice" left behind, yet embedded in his systems when he retired ... the openness to discuss that corruption (like that revealed in the recent whistleblowing dissent by courageous Justice David and fresh breath of air Chief Justice Rush,) is a great example of the First Amendment at work. I will not be silenced as long as this tree falling in the wood can be heard. The Hoosier Judiciary has deep seated problems, generational corruption, ideological corruption. Many cases demonstrate this. It must be spotlighted. The corrupted system has no hold on me now, none. I have survived their best shots. It is now my time to not be silent. To the Glory of God, and for the good of man's law. (It almost always works that way as to the true law, as I explained the bar examiners -- who refused to follow even their own statutory law and violated core organic law when banishing me for life -- actually revealing themselves to be lawless.)

  5. to answer your questions, you would still be practicing law and its very sad because we need lawyers like you to stand up for the little guy who have no voice. You probably were a threat to them and they didnt know how to handle the truth and did not want anyone to "rock the boat" so instead of allowing you to keep praticing they banished you, silenced you , the cowards that they are.

ADVERTISEMENT