ILNews

Opinions Oct. 17, 2012

October 17, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court

J.M. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and T.C.
Agency appeal. Finds the court may rely on a different statutory ground of a just cause finding than the one relied upon by the review board when, as here, the review board’s findings of fact clearly establish the alternate subsection’s applicability. Affirms the review board under Indiana Code section 22-4-15-1(d)(5), that J.M. refused to obey instructions, and was thus fired for just cause. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Earl F. Shields, Larry J. Shields, and Robert L. Shields v. Rodney L. Taylor
53A04-1202-PL-95
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s Dec. 9, 2011, finding of facts, conclusions of law and order, and the denial of the Shields’ motion to correct errors in favor of Rodney Taylor on his complaint for trespass. Agrees that the Shields’ counterclaim was not sufficiently pled to encompass a theory of easement by prescription.

Wind Wire, LLC v. Roger Finney and Patricia Finney
71A03-1202-PL-78
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment that Wind Wire fraudulently induced Roger and Patricia Finney to execute a contract for the purchase and installation of a residential wind turbine. The trial judge applied the correct legal standard.  

D.L., Glen Black, Ann Black, Steven Lucas, and K.L., by her Next Friend, D.L. v. Christine Huck, Laura Zimmerman, Angela Smith Grossman, Rhonda Friend, Angyl McClaine, and Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs.
79A04-1202-CT-61
Civil tort.  Concludes that DCS was not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for any of the claimed actions, including negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but is entitled to statutory immunity for all the originally dismissed claims except for the fraud claim. Ann and Glen, but not Steven, had standing to bring the suit, so D.L., K.L., Ann Black and Glen Black may proceed on the fraud claim. Remands for further proceedings.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: A.R., V.R., C.R., and K.B.; and T.B. and C.R. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services and Lake County Court Appointed Special Advocates (NFP)
45A03-1201-JT-38
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of T.H.M.; T.H. and A.M. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1202-JT-61
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

George Powells v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-255
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class C felony battery.

Curt Lowder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1204-CR-160
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for murder.

Mark Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1201-CR-35
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Norman Barker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-20
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for murder, felony murder, Class A felonies robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT