ILNews

Opinions Oct. 18, 2012

October 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

John A. Dugan v. State of Indiana
49A05-1202-PC-50
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief. The court erred when it denied Dugan’s claim that Mills applied retroactively to his habitual offender enhancement. Remands for the court to vacate that enhancement.

Daniel Nanos v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1205-CR-238
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion for jail time credit and remands so that Nanos is granted an additional six days of credit against all of his sentences.

Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd. v. Pharmakon Long Term Care Pharmacy, Inc. f/k/a LIberty Express Scripts, Inc., Paul Elmer, and Veterinary Inventory Solutions, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1110-CC-980
Civil collection. Affirms order limiting Elmer’s personal liability for certain purchases by Veterinary Inventory Solutions Inc. to $3,000.

http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2012/october/10181203cjb.pdf

Gohmann Asphalt & Construction, Inc. v. Five Star Painting, Inc. (NFP)
10A04-1206-CC-324
Civil collection. Reverses order reinstating a complaint filed by Five Star Painting Inc.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.B., Minor Child, and Her Father, S.M.B.; S.M.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
53A01-1204-JT-147
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Blake Clayton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-CR-129
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony pointing a firearm.

Bryan A.Ogle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1202-CR-55
Criminal. Affirms Ogle was properly sentenced for both the Class B felony robbery conviction and habitual offender enhancement but that the court should have ordered the sentences to run consecutively.

Logan Wininiger, Richard Roberts, et al. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, New NGC, Inc. d/b/a National Gypsum Services Company (NFP)
93A02-1203-EX-225
Agency action. Affirms review board’s finding that claimants are ineligible for unemployment compensation because they were unemployed as a result of a labor dispute.

Robert Peacher v. Dennis Davis (NFP)
48A02-1110-SC-1027
Small claim. Affirms order dismissing Peacher’s action against Davis.

State of Indiana v. Shaun L. Steele (NFP)
20A03-1111-PC-502
Post conviction. Reverses grant of Steele’s PCR petition on the issue of double enhancement, but affirms the post-conviction court in all other respects. Remands for further proceedings.
.

 

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