Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Indiana Court of Appeals
Tyler R. Browder v. State of Indiana
49A04-1608-CR-1857
Criminal. Affirms Tyler Browder’s conviction for Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Finds Officer Brady Ball’s decision to prolong the traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. Also finds Browder’s consent to search the vehicle was voluntary. Finally, finds the Marion Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted into evidence the paraphernalia discovered during the warrantless vehicle search.
In re the Marriage of: Milana Staletovich Riggs v. Leon O. Riggs (mem. dec.)
49A02-1605-DR-1057
Domestic relation. Affirms the Marion Superior Court’s order dismissing Milana Staletovich Riggs’ petition for dissolution of marriage following the death of Leon O. Riggs. Finds the trial court lost jurisdiction over the dissolution action when Leon Riggs died prior to the entry of a dissolution decree. Judge Margaret Robb dissents with separate opinion.
Ryan Adams v. Amber Baker (mem. dec.)
34A05-1607-PL-1598
Civil plenary. Affirms the Howard Circuit Court’s judgment in favor of Amber Baker on her complaint for replevin and damages. Finds the trial court did not err when it concluded Ryan Adams had impliedly contracted to reimburse Baker for the money she spent on bail and truck accessories. Also finds the trial court did not err when it declined Adams’ request to offset his contributions to the parties’ household and living expenses against judgment “and award no money to Baker.”
In the Matter of L.G., A Child in Need of Services, J.C., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
52A05-1610-JC-2454
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms the juvenile court’s adjudication of J.C.’s minor son, L.G., as being a child in need of services. Finds the Department of Child Services proved by a preponderance of the evidence that L.G.’s physical or mental condition was seriously endangered as a result of J.C.’s action or inaction and that L.G. needed care or treatment that he was not getting and was unlikely to get without coercive intervention of the court. Also finds the juvenile court did not err.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.