ILNews

Opinions Sept. 16, 2010

September 16, 2010
Keywords
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.
71A04-1002-AD-127
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)
49A05-0912-CV-727
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.
32A01-1002-PL-37
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)
49A04-0912-CR-714
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder.

T.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1002-JV-91
Juvenile. Affirms commitment of the Department of Correction.

William C. Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-0909-PC-460
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

James Griffith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1003-PC-394
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jason Barrett v. Scores, Inc. and Jason English (NFP)
82A01-1003-PL-177
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)
20A05-1003-PC-186
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)
49A02-1002-JC-203
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)
49A02-1001-CR-70
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

C.T. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-JV-344
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)
44A03-1001-CR-79
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)
85A05-1004-PL-307
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.
 

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