ILNews

Opinions Sept. 11, 2012

September 11, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals released no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court released no opinions by IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Phillip A. Collins v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee for Home Equity Loan Trust Series Act 2004-HE3
45A03-1111-MF-600
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of HSBC, holding that Collins is estopped from asserting claims previously lost and litigated.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of: Z.G. (Minor Child), and D.G. (Father), and T.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1202-JT-102
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights for each parent.

Pac-Van, Inc. v. Wekiva Falls Resort
49A02-1204-CT-337
Civil tort. Reverse and remands a judgment for post-judgment interest and attorney fees, reducing the amount owed to Wekiva Falls, holding that the amount owed was based on the time between the judgment and the payment, and not the time until the court calculates the amount of post-judgment interest owed.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of: Q.M. and E.M., Minor Children, B.M., Father v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services
15A05-1112-JT-706
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Reverses and remands termination of father’s parental rights, holding that the trial court erred in terminating rights because the Department of Child Services failed to satisfy the mandates of I.C. § 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(A).

Aaron Young v. State of Indiana
71A05-1111-CR-650
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molestation but reverses and remands the supplemental sentencing order that classifies Young as a credit-restricted felon.

Brittany L. McConniel v. State of Indiana
18A02-1108-CR-733
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death, holding that the nature of the offense and the character of the offender revealed by the evidence presented leads to the conclusion that the sentence imposed by the trial court is not inappropriate.

J.Z. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1202-JV-132
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of delinquency.

J.G. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-JV-17
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of delinquency.

Argelio Gonzales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1202-CR-92
Criminal. Affirms trial court order denying motion for sentence reduction.

Joseph V. Haas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
42A05-1202-CR-80
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

William Adams and Patricia Adams v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (NFP)
18A02-1202-MF-96
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Chase.

Dennis Yerk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
91A02-1111-CR-1056
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony conviction of killing a domestic animal.
 
Lake County Trust Co., as Trustee for Lake County Trust 5434 v. United Consumers Club, Inc. (NFP)
45A03-1111-PL-527
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for the trust, holding that the trust did not have standing to sue.

In the Matter of a Minor Child in Need of Services, T.C., Minor Child, M.C., Mother v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
85A02-1202-JC-139
Juvenile custody. Affirms adjudication of T.C. as a child in need of services.

 Robert A. Lesure v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1202-CR-87
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class B felony robbery, and Class C felony intimidation.

Zimmer, Inc. and Zimmer Dental, Inc. v. Jason Young, Renae Salvitti, and Implant Direct Sybron Manufacturing, LLC d/b/a Implant Direct Sybron Intl. (NFP)
02A03-1112-CT-548
Civil tort. Affirms on interlocutory appeal the trial court’s denial of Zimmer’s request for additional injunctive relief.
 

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