« Law - More on: "Tech activist takes on governments over 'copyrighted' laws" | Main | Environment - Resources for Indiana environmental lawyers »

Monday, September 29, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 8 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In Charlotte M. v. Jasper Co. Dept. of Child Svcs. , a 19-page opinion, the Court reverses a termination of parent rights. Judge Najam concludes:

In failing to provide a nexus between its purported findings, which simply recite the evidence presented during the termination hearing, and its decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the twins, the trial court’s termination orders fail to satisfy the requirements of Indiana’s termination statutes. Additionally, although cognizant of the high degree of deference to be given a trial court’s decision to terminate a parent-child relationship, we nevertheless can affirm a trial court’s judgment only if we find that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the judgment was established by clear and convincing evidence. Without weighing the evidence or assessing witness credibility, a thorough review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that the trial court’s termination orders are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, the trial court’s orders terminating Mother’s parental rights to C.R.M. and C.B.M. are clearly erroneous. Reversed.
In Ray A. Haas, M.D. v. Donald H. Bush, Rep. of the Estate of Elaine M. Bush , a 9-page opinion, Judge Friedlander writes:
Ray A. Haas, M.D. appeals a wrongful death judgment entered in favor of Donald H. Bush, as personal representative of the estate of his deceased wife, Elaine M. Bush (the Estate). Dr. Haas presents the following consolidated and restated issues for review: 1. Did the Indiana Supreme Court exceed its authority under the Indiana Constitution when it adopted Section 323 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts? 2. Did the trial court erroneously admit the written opinion of the medical review panel into evidence? We affirm.
In John J. Balvich, Arlene Balvich, et al. v. Stephen C. and Maureen Spicer, a 23-page opinion, Chief Judge Baker writes:
Appellants-defendants John, Arlene, Jordan, and Beth Balvich (collectively, the Balviches) appeal the trial court’s judgment entered in favor of the appellees-plaintiffs Stephen and Maureen Spicer (the Spicers) regarding the Spicers’ claim against them for contribution on various deficiency judgments that had been entered against the Spicers. Specifically, the Balviches argue that the Spicers’ action against them was barred by the statute of limitations, that joint and several liability should not have attached, and that the Spicers erroneously obtained a judgment against them with regard to tax liabilities of the various business entities because the Indiana Tax Court had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. * * *

In light of our discussion above, we conclude that the Spicers’ action against the Balviches for contribution was not barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, the evidence established that the Spicers were entitled to contribution from the Balviches on the AT&T and Bank One judgments, and the trial court properly concluded that the Spicers were entitled to contribution from Arlene on the Indiana tax trust liabilities.

NFP civil opinions today (1):

Ilene R. Maurer v. Herman Maurer (NFP) - "Ilene Maurer appeals the trial court’s Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) dismissal of her complaint against Herman Maurer. Ilene raises five issues on appeal, which we consolidate and restate as two issues: (1) whether the trial court erred when it dismissed her intentional interference with expectance of inheritance claim; and (2) whether the trial court erred when it dismissed her Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) claim. Concluding that although Ilene’s claims are not barred by the necessity of bringing them as a will contest pursuant to Indiana Code section 29-1-7-17, she nonetheless has failed to sufficiently plead a claim for which relief may be granted, we affirm."

NFP criminal opinions today (7):

Jason J. Green v. Laura S. Green (NFP)

Adrian E. Cofield v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Michael Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Donald S. Lacy v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Kenneth William Shryock v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jharon Holland v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Emigdio Lopez v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 29, 2008 12:45 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions