ILNews

Opinions Oct. 8, 2010

October 8, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Richmond State Hospital, et al. v. Paula Brattain, et al.
49A02-0908-CV-718
Civil. Reverses finding that the merit employees, represented by Veregge and Strong, are entitled to 20 years of back pay and remands with instructions to recalculate the merit employees’ back pay based on the time period beginning 10 days before the July 29, 1993, complaint was filed and ending when the state abolished the split class system. Instructs the trial court to determine whether the state abolished the split class system on Sept. 12 or Sept. 19, 1993. Affirms in all other respects.

Earl Budd v. State of Indiana
31A01-0910-PC-504
Post conviction. Affirms denial of successive petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court didn’t err by finding Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-3.3(h)(2)(B) doesn’t constitute a bill of attainder, an ex post facto law or a denial of equal protection.

R.R. F. v. L.L.F.
69A01-1001-DR-77
Domestic relation. Affirms order father pay retroactive child support to a date preceding the filing date of mother’s petition to modify. The provision in the parties’ agreed entry whereby father ceased child support payments upon E.F.’s 18th birthday was contrary to law and void. The dissolution court should have credited father for certain payments against the court’s order that he pay $2,961.75 for the period May 11 to Aug. 22, 2009. Remands to the dissolution court and instructs to first consider the reduction in the parents’ obligation toward E.F.’s college expenses realized by mother’s tax credit and then apportion the parents’ obligations accordingly.

Victor J. Bandini v. Joann M. Bandini
49A04-1001-DR-26
Domestic relation. The trial court correctly interpreted the parties’ settlement agreement as contemplating an equal division of Victor’s gross retirement pay. The trial court erred in ordering him to pay his ex-wife an amount equal to half of his gross retirement pay prior to any deductions for his Veterans Administration disability benefits waiver and Survivor Benefit Plan costs. Indiana trial courts lack authority to enforce even an agreed-upon division of property insofar as it divides amounts of gross military retirement pay that were, previous to the decree, waived to receive disability benefits or elected to be deducted from gross pay as SBP costs to benefit the former spouse. Holds that a military spouse may not, by a post-decree waiver of retirement pay in favor of disability benefits or Combat-Related Special Compensation, unilaterally and voluntarily reduce the benefits awarded the former spouse in a dissolution decree. Remands for further proceedings.

Ronald J. McGary v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1003-CR-129
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to operating a motor vehicle as a habitual traffic offender as a Class D felony.

Jason D. Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A02-1002-CR-129
Criminal. Reverses determination of Miller’s credit time classification and remands for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class A felony child molesting and Class C felony child molesting.

Steven A. Reynolds v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1003-CR-471
Criminal. Affirms sentences for two counts of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Fraternal Order of Police, Evansville Lodge No. 73 v. City of Evansville, IN. (NFP)
82A04-1002-PL-94
Civil plenary. Affirms conclusion the city didn’t breach the collective bargaining agreement by reducing the number of patrol sergeants allowed to work on holidays.

Jeremy M. Frantzreb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A05-1002-CR-109
Criminal. Reverses convictions of Class C felony forgery and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and remands for a new trial.

Indiana Parole Board v. Martin De La Torre (NFP)
72A01-1005-CR-254
Criminal. Reverses denial of the Indiana Parole Board’s motion to correct error.

S.T. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-JV-301
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for committing what would be Class C felony robbery if committed by an adult.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT