Opinions Sept. 16, 2010

September 16, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court

Foundations of East Chicago, Inc., Successor by Merger to East Chicago Community Development Foundation, Inc. and Twin City Education Foundation, Inc. v. City of East Chicago
No. 49S02-0908-CV-00383
Civil. Justices granted a rehearing petition, holding that the city didn’t follow Indiana Appellate Rule 65(E) and was premature in filing a motion at the trial court level before a previous appellate ruling was certified. Justices found the trial court correctly denied the city’s request, and it kept intact its original opinion from May.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Adoption of N.W., M.W. v A.W.
Adoption. Reverses grant of adoption of N.W. by stepmother A.W. The stepmother failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the mother’s consent to the adoption was not required. The adoption is also not in the best interest of the child.

Matthew B. Ashworth v. Kathryn Ehrgott (Ashworth)
Civil. Finds the trial court failed to deduct Ashworth’s $1,500 monthly alimony payment from his weekly gross income because it is a maintenance payment to mother, failed to credit Ashworth for the children’s health insurance premium, improperly included his daughter’s full-time preschool expenses as a work-related child care expense for Ehrgott even though she was not working, and that the record does not support the trial court’s order that Ashworth pay for his son’s private school tuition as added child support. Remands for further proceedings. Affirms on all other issues.

Brownsburg Municipal Building Corp. v. R.L. Turner Corp., et al.
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Brownsburg’s motion for partial summary judgment in a suit filed by R.L. Turner and St. Paul Fire in Turner’s suit for damages from breach of contract and under the theory of quantum meruit. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Turner and/or the architect timely complied with the provisions of the contract.

Calvin Sanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder.

T.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms commitment of the Department of Correction.

William C. Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

James Griffith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jason Barrett v. Scores, Inc. and Jason English (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment to Scores Inc. and English on Barrett’s claims that English breached his fiduciary duty to Barrett and that both Scores and English committed conversion of Barrett’s property.

Timothy Manges v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

A.E., et al., Alleged to be CHINS; T.E. v. Marion County DCS and Child Advocates (NFP)
Juvenile. Reverses determination that the three children are children in need of services. Remands for a new dispositional decree that includes written findings and conclusions concerning elements listed in Indiana Code Section 31-34-19-10.

Aaron Spears v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

C.T. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms finding C.T. committed what would be Class B misdemeanor public nudity if committed by an adult.

Arron L. Declue v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms 20-year sentence with five years suspended for aggravated battery and criminal confinement, both as Class B felonies.

Richard Wion d/b/a Lothlorien Farms v. Town of North Manchester (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for the town in its complaint to enforce an order for the owner of a building to vacate and demolish the building, which was deemed unsafe.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.