ILNews

Opinions Oct. 28, 2011

October 28, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Rick Gillespie, Dawn Gillespie and Rick's Towing and Maintenance, LLC v. Frank B. Niles and Kathryn Niles
49A05-1102-CT-70
Civil tort. Affirms denial of the Gillespies’ objection to the Nileses’ request for a pre-trial conference and refusal to dismiss the action under Indiana Trial Rule 41(E). Affirms grant of summary judgment for the Niles and denial of summary judgment for the Gillespies. The Gillespies failed to wait the required 15 days before selling Kathryn’s vehicle at auction. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment against the Gillespies individually as the judgment should be against Rick’s Towing only.

R.R.F. v. L.L.F.
69A01-1102-DR-70
Domestic relation. Affirms order on remand apportioning post-secondary educational expenses for the parties’ son between father and mother. The appellate court has subject matter jurisdiction because the order on remand is an appealable final judgment and the dissolution court’s allocation of the benefits of the tax credits as a result of the son’s enrollment in college was not clearly erroneous.

M.L. v. Meridian Services, Inc.
18A02-1103-MH-233
Mental health. Affirms M.L.’s temporary commitment to a state-operated facility for a 90-day period because there is clear and convincing evidence he was dangerous. Reverses the authorization to administer medication because there is insufficient evidence to support it.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of E.P. (Minor child) and A.P. and J.P. (Parents); A.P. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
47A01-1101-JT-38
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

Terry Laderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-221
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Farrell Haycraft v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1009-PC-525
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

James Traylor v. Beth Traylor (NFP)
29A02-1102-DR-247
Domestic relation. Affirms finding James Traylor was in contempt and the stayed $6,500 portion of the fine and the attorney fee award were proper sanctions. Reverses first $6,500 portion of the fine because it was improper. Remands for that portion to be vacated.

Weida Levee, LLC v. Doug Brooks and Regina Brooks (NFP)
79A05-1012-CT-739
Civil tort. Affirms order in favor of the Brookses in a case involving a lease of commercial space.

Blease White, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1101-PC-16
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Buzz Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A05-1104-PC-183
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

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 work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT