« Law - Instructive example of a good law exam answer | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides Vincennes University case »
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 10 NFP)
For publication opinions today (1):
Steven Lang v. Starke Co. Office of Family & Children - Judge Robb: "Steven Lang appeals from the trial court’s order involuntarily terminating his parent-child relationship with his three daughters. On appeal, he raises four issues, which we consolidate and restate as: (1) whether clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s order terminating Lang’s parental rights; (2) whether Lang was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (3) whether the involuntary termination violated Lang’s due process rights. We affirm, concluding that clear and convincing evidence exists to support the trial court’s order, that Lang’s counsel was effective, and that Lang was afforded due process."
NFP civil opinions today (4):
Yvonne C. Storey, et al. v. Harold Baker, et al. (NFP) Drag strip case. Judge Vaidik: "Because the Storeys signed a valid release and waiver as to all claims of negligence against the Defendants, and because they failed to properly raise any other claims before the trial court, we affirm summary judgment."
Stan Garus v. Steven Wright, et al (NFP) - Judge Baker: "Pro se appellant-plaintiff Stan Garus, a Bloomington landlord, appeals from a small claims trial court judgment awarding him $4,690.50 in an action he brought against defendants Steven Wright, Michael Spiering, and Jared Crane (collectively, the defendants). Garus raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as: (1) whether the trial court erred by not accepting a proffered settlement agreement, and (2) whether the trial court erred by not awarding Garus $5,773, the full amount that he requested in his complaint. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court."
Carlos Michael Bowen v. Barry Sullivan (NFP) - Pro se appellant. Judge Vaidik: "Carlos Bowen appeals the trial court’s grant of judgment in favor of Barry Sullivan on Bowen’s small claims action for fraud. Because Bowen is appealing from a negative judgment, he has the burden of showing that the trial court’s judgment is contrary to law. Finding that the trial court’s judgment is not contrary to law, we affirm. * * * Bowen clearly believes that Sullivan knew of problems with the boat when he sold it. Sullivan testified that he knew of no such problems. The trial court, after seeing the witnesses first hand, listening to their testimony, and viewing the documentary evidence, granted judgment in favor of Sullivan. For us to reverse that decision, we would have to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses. This we cannot do."
In the Matter of J.L. and V.L., Karen and Francisco Lucio v. Lake Co. Office of Family & Children (NFP) - affirmed.
NFP criminal opinions today (6):
Antwan Richmond v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Albert Chalmers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Thomas Lano v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Timothy A. Woolum, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Antrell Blissett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Dwayne James Hoard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 14, 2007 11:01 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions