ILNews

Opinions Feb. 1, 2013

February 1, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Eugene Devbrow v. Dr. Eke Kalu, et al.
12-2467
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney.
Civil. Reverses judgment for the defendants on prisoner Devbrow’s suit that two prison doctors and a prison nurse were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The statute of limitations for a Section 1983 deliberate-indifference claim brought to redress a medical injury doesn’t begin to run until the plaintiff knows of his injury and its cause, so his suit is timely.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Travis Koontz v. State of Indiana
29A05-1202-CR-77
Criminal. Grants rehearing to correct a misstatement of the law, but affirms original opinion that held Koontz waived any claim of an illegal sentence by entering into a plea agreement that reduced his penal exposure. Judge Baker would reverse as previously stated in his dissenting opinion.

Judy Canada v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., BAC GP, LLC, and BAC Home Loans Services, LP (NFP)
49A05-1203-PL-154
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of a motion to reconsider filed by Bank of America in which the trial court reaffirmed its dismissal of Count I of Canada’s class action brought as a Complaint For Fraud on the court and dismissed Count II, which contained an allegation of violations of the Indiana Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Alvino Pizano v. IDOC Commissioner Bruce Lemmons, IDOC Parole Chairman Gregory Server, CIF Superintendent Wendy Knight (NFP)
48A02-1209-MI-770
Miscellaneous. Affirms dismissal of lawsuit.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: Se.L.; N.L.; G.L.; J.L.; Sh.L.; L.L.; & I.L. (Minor Children), and D.L. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
48A02-1207-JT-537
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Christopher Hanneman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
67A05-1207-CR-344
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Theresa Pressinell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

20A03-1206-CR-267
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of dealing in methamphetamine as Class A felonies.

Larry Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1111-CR-602
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct error.

The Indiana Supreme Court and 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