ILNews

Opinions June 5, 2013

June 5, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: K.T.K., K.C., and K.R.K. (Minor Children), and R.C. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, Dearborn County Office
15S01-1306-JT-402
Juvenile. Sets aside the Court of Appeals order dismissing the mother’s appeal and affirms termination of parental rights. The record supports the trial court’s findings that the conditions resulting in the children’s continued placement outside of the home would not be remedied and termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the children. Denies father’s petition to transfer in separate order.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jesus S. Gil v. State of Indiana
24A04-1211-CR-603
Criminal. The trial court erred by failing to enter written probation terms after Gil pleaded guilty to one count of Class B felony burglary. Affirms the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing restitution and a fine because Gil’s open plea agreement left sentencing to the judge’s discretion, but erred in imposing $20,000 in restitution when the record didn’t establish the value of the jewelry taken or damages sustained. Remands with instructions to enter written probation terms and for a new restitution hearing. Affirms 12-year aggregate sentence.

Bennie Gavin v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1211-CR-565
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions to vacate Gavin’s conviction of operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of 0.15 or more. Affirms operating while intoxicated conviction and habitual substance offender enhancement.

Richard Brock and Gail Brock v. Pamela Gilbert (NFP)
15A05-1208-PL-401
Civil plenary. Affirms ruling in favor of Gilbert that the Brocks had gifted their dog to her.

Joshua Schulkers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1210-CR-497
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions to vacate Schulkers’ conviction and sentence for Class D felony battery resulting in bodily injury on a child less than 14 and affirms other battery and neglect convictions.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT