Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline on Tuesday:
In the Matter of the Adoption of S.L.; P.L. v. M.H. and A.H.
23S-AD-00158
Adoption. Dismisses adoptive parents M.H. and A.H.’s appeal of the decision requiring them to provide notice to biological father of the temporary custody of child, S.L. Finds the Hamilton Superior Court granted only temporary custody while the adoption petition was still pending. Also finds the trial court’s order was not a final judgment under Appellate Rule 2(H).
Wednesday opinions
Indiana Supreme Court
Kathryn Davidson v. State of Indiana, et al.
22S-CT-318
Civil tort. Affirms the Monroe Circuit Court’s judgment dismissing Kathryn Davidson’s lawsuit with prejudice and denying Davidson’s motions to correct error and to amend her complaint. Finds claim preclusion does not apply but issue preclusion does, and the trial court was correct in dismissing Davidson’s action on the latter ground. Also finds the trial court was not obliged to review the Rule 12 motions as motions under Rule 56. Finally, finds the trial court was entitled to dismiss the action with prejudice, so it did not violate Davidson’s due process rights.
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Matthew T. McKinney v. State of Indiana
22A-CR-2535
Criminal. Affirms Matthew McKinney’s convictions in Marion Superior Court of possession of methamphetamine, a Level 4 felony; unlawful possession of a syringe, a Level 6 felony; and driving while suspended, a Class A misdemeanor. Finds McKinney’s rights under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution were not violated when evidence obtained by a canine sniff and subsequent search of his vehicle was admitted.
Leonard McKenzie v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-2508
Criminal. Affirms Leonard McKenzie’s conviction and 60-day suspended sentence for carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor. Finds sufficient evidence to support McKenzie’s conviction. Also finds that the incredible dubiosity rule does not apply to an officer’s corroborated testimony in the case.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.