ILNews

Opinions Sept. 22, 2010

September 22, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday.
Indiana Supreme Court
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of I.B.; M.L. v. IDCS
03S05-1004-JV-218
Juvenile. Affirms denial of juvenile court to appoint appellate counsel to represent mother in an appeal of the involuntary termination of parental rights order. Holds that Indiana statutes dictate that the right to counsel continues through all stages of the proceeding to terminate the parent-child relationship, including appeal. Finds that the Rules of Professional Conduct, guidance from other jurisdictions, and the principal policy considerations animating termination of parental rights adjudications all dictate that, on the facts of this case, the lawyer had no basis to file an appeal and the trial court was correct not to appoint appellate counsel for that purpose.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court
Rosalyn West v. Betty Wadlington,et al.
49S02-1009-CV-509
Civil. Reverses trial court’s grant of Larkin and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department’s motions to dismiss West’s defamation and invasion of privacy claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Holds that a trial court with general jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of defamation and invasion of privacy is not ousted of jurisdiction merely because a religious defense to the claims is asserted. Remands for further proceedings.

Virginia Meister v. State of Indiana and the City of Union City, Indiana
68S04-1009-CV-510
Civil. Grants transfer and affirms trial court order that Meister’s truck be forfeited after her son was found to have drugs in the truck following a traffic stop. Although the search was invalid under Gant, it was justified under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment based on probable cause and that it was a readily mobile vehicle.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Donte L. Boatner v. State of Indiana
49A04-1002-CR-68
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. The trial court did not err in admitting Boatner’s girlfriend’s statement under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. Boatner’s confrontation claim is waived, and even if he had properly preserved his Crawford confrontation claim, his girlfriend’s statement to the deputy was not testimonial.

Sunder Upshaw v. State of Indiana
49A02-1003-CR-239
Criminal. Reverses conviction of driving while suspended with a prior misdemeanor conviction as a Class A misdemeanor. There is insufficient evidence supporting Upshaw’s conviction. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in cocaine. Upshaw’s confession upon arrest of dealing drugs combined with the evidence of the drugs are sufficient to support his dealing conviction. Remands to amend the judgment of conviction by deleting the Class A misdemeanor conviction and inserting the Class A infraction in its place.

Ronald W. Ritz, et al. v. Town of Brookville (NFP)
24A01-0912-CV-576
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order requiring the demolition of the structure on the Ritzes’ property and enjoining them from violating the Brookville Property Maintenance Code. Reverses award of $2,500 to Brookville and remands to the trial court to impose a penalty consistent with the opinion.

Ellen C. Bragg Firn v. Todd D. Bragg (NFP)
85A04-1002-DR-243
Domestic relation. Affirms order awarding physical custody of minor son to Todd Bragg.

Larry Tidmore v. Linn A. Mackey and Ind. Farm Bureau Ins. (NFP)
27A04-1005-PL-323
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance and Mackey on Tidmore’s complaint for damages stemming from a car accident.

Harold Schuler Owen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1003-CR-130
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Paul S. Freeman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-0912-CR-573
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT