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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT