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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT