Tag Archives: Update

Case Law Update

Venue and Jurisdiction

Goodman v. SeRine Ind.Ct.App. March 31, 2014

Although the sellers’ bankruptcy action had been dismissed, the bankruptcy court that heard the bankruptcy action was the proper venue for a quiet title action on property that was a part of the bankruptcy estate.

Commercial Speech

Miller v. Fed Ex Ind.Ct.App. April 4, 2014

Fed Ex was found immune from suit under the Federal Communications Decency Act as they are providers of an interactive computer service, as defined under Section 230(c).  To qualify for immunity, Fed Ex had to show that they were a provider of an interactive computer service, that the action treated them as the publisher of the information and that the information was provided by another content provider; they successfully did so.


Metzger v. State Ind.Ct.App. Mar. 31, 2014

When a blood draw warrant had been issued for a driver who had refused a breath test, the driver’s refusal to cooperate with the blood draw was properly found to be in indirect criminal contempt.


Wilson v. State Indiana Supreme Court April 1, 2014

A “hybrid” sentence for multiple convictions arising out of the same factual circumstance is not authorized by statute.  The trial court, in sentencing a criminal to a partially concurrent and partially consecutive term, acted outside of its authority.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Case Law Update

Welcome to the newest blogging expedition at the Urberg Law Office.  As often as possible, we will now be posting case updates from the most up-to-date opinions released by Indiana Courts.  This will be an attempt to keep our readers on the “up and up” regarding legal news.  Here are the latest cases for the week of 3/10/14:


In re T.L. Case No. 02S03-1308-AD-528 (Indiana Supreme Court, March 11, 2014)

Under Indiana Code 31-19-9-8, a parent may lose parental rights in an adoption proceeding for failure to take care of their child financially for a period of one year if the evidence clearly and convincingly shows that the parent could take care of the child.  If the parent fails to follow through with their required care and support as required by law or judicial decree, their consent may not be required for an adoption proceeding.  In this particular case, the Father was incarcerated but was found to have still been able to make some support payment while incarcerated.  Therefore, his consent was not necessary for the adoption of his child.


Hicks v. State Case No. 82A01-1306-CR-256 (Indiana Court of Appeals, March 11, 2014).

In this case, the defendant was asked a number of “pre-interview” questions.  The police did not receive a confession that the defendant committed the crime in question during this pre-interview. Defendant argued that the police purposefully withheld Miranda rights to secure a confession, subsequently read the Defendant his Miranda warning and proceeded to secure a second confession.  The police testified at trial that this was not the case.  As the Appellate court cannot reweigh testimony or credibility, the only evidence present was the police testimony.  Therefore, the confession was not suppressed and the defendant’s conviction upheld.


In re E.M. Case No. 45S03-1308-JT-557 (Indiana Supreme Court, March 7, 2014).

Father was incarcerated and made no attempt to foster a healthy relationship with his children.  Upon release from prison, father took steps to build a relationship with his children.  The Court found that his efforts were too late and that permanent termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of the children.



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized