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.














Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!