Search Results

Indiana Court of Appeals
Matthew Dale Thies Sr. v. State of Indiana
24A-PC-2600
Post-conviction relief. Affirms the Dearborn Superior Court’s denial of Matthew Thies’ petition for post-conviction relief. Finds Thies has failed to demonstrate that a reasonable jury could have reached a different verdict but for counsels’ alleged errors. Also finds that even if trial counsels’ performance may have fallen short of ideal standards in some respects, Thies has failed to prove that he was prejudiced by the alleged errors. Finally, finds the post-conviction court, therefore, did not err in determining that Thies did not prove that he had received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Attorney for appellant: Michael Cunningham. Attorneys for appellees: Todd Rokita, Robert Yoke.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Indiana State Health Commissioner, in the officer’s official capacity, and Voices for Life, Inc. v. Caitlin Bernard, M.D., and Caroline Rouse, M.D.
25A-PL-782
Civil plenary. Affirms the Marion Superior Court’s order that concluded that Caitlin Bernard and Caroline Rouse had standing as doctors to seek a declaratory judgment and were entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Indiana Health Commissioner from disclosing terminated pregnancy reports in response to any Indiana Access to Public Records Act requests. Finds the trial court did not err in concluding that the doctors have standing to seek a declaratory judgment. Also finds the absence of a patient’s name from a TPR does not make it something other than a patient medical record. Finally, finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the doctors a preliminary injunction as to the TPRs submitted by doctors. Attorneys for appellants: Todd Rokita, James Barta, Katelyn Doering, Patrick Gillen, Benjamin Horvath. Attorneys for appellees: Tanya Pellegrini, Kathrine Jack, Stephanie Toti, Juanluis Rodriguez.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of: T.F. and M.F. (Minor Children) and D.F. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
25A-JC-1450
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms the Shelby Superior Court’s adjudication of D.F.’s children, T.F. and M.F., as children in need of services and the dispositional decree continuing their removal from her care. Finds that the mother has not demonstrated the trial court abused its discretion when adjudicating children as CHINS or entering the dispositional decree. Attorney for appellant: Cara Wieneke. Attorneys for appellee: Todd Rokita, Abigail Recker.