ILNews

Opinions Dec. 4, 2012

December 4, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jerry Vanzyll v. State of Indiana
34A02-1111-CR-1050
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands to the trial court convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felonies of possession of meth and possession of chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The court affirmed the drug convictions but ordered the resisting conviction vacated because it held there was insufficient evidence to prove that Vanzyll fled.

Lane Alan Schrader Trust as Trustee under the Trust Agreement dated 16th day of November, 1999, and known as Lane Alan Schrader Self-Declaration of Trust v. Larry Gilbert and Nancy J. Malecki
75A04-1112-PL-676
Civil plenary, rehearing. Affirms prior COA order that affirmed a trial court’s determination that a legal survey was defective, and restated that the trial court has three options: it may accept the original survey, reject the survey and order a new survey by a different surveyor, or order the county surveyor to mark property boundaries according to court findings based on evidence presented to the court, including previous surveys.  

James T. Mitchell v. 10th And The Bypass, LLC, and Elway, Inc.
53A01-1112-PL-593
Civil plenary, rehearing. Affirms prior COA ruling that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it vacated its interlocutory partial summary judgment for Mitchell under Indiana Trial Rule 54(B), concluding that on rehearing Mitchell attempted to adjust and supplement his original argument, which he cannot do.

Brian A. McKinney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A05-1203-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felonies robbery and escape and Class D felony residential entry.

B.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-JV-421
Juvenile/criminal. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for committing acts that would constitute residential entry as a class D felony and criminal mischief as a class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

Robert E. Eastwood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
07A04-1202-CR-64
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting, Class C felony child molesting and Class D felony fondling in the presence of a minor.

Richard Eric Johnson v. Gillian Wheeler Johnson (NFP)
49A05-1202-DR-81
Domestic relations. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands to the trial court with instructions to recalculate child support and amend its order accordingly.

S.J. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-JV-147
Juvenile. Affirms commitment of S.J. as a ward of the Department of Correction following true findings for burglary and theft.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

ADVERTISEMENT