ILNews

Opinions May 1, 2014

May 1, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Alva Electric, Inc., Arc Construction Co., Inc., Danco Construction, Inc., Deig Bros. Lumber & Construction Co., Inc., et al. v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation and EVSC Foundation, Inc.
82S01-1307-PL-473
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the antitrust claim. Reverses summary judgment for the defendants on the issue of a public bidding violation. Holds the procedure employed by the school corporation to renovate one of its buildings violated Indiana’s Public Work Statute, but not the Antitrust Act. Remands with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the taxpayers who brought the lawsuit as well as a declaration that the transactions by the school corporation violated the Public Work Statute.

Daniel Brewington v. State of Indiana
15S01-1405-CR-309
Criminal. Grants transfer and affirms Brewington’s convictions for intimidating a judge and obstruction of justice related to a doctor, finding the evidence sufficient to support those convictions under I.C. 35-45-2-1(c)(1)-(3) – without implicating constitutional free-speech protections. Affirms Court of Appeals decision to reverse his intimidation convictions involving the doctor and judge’s wife and affirming Brewington’s perjury conviction.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert W. Evans v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1308-CR-386
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

In re the Marriage of: John Lane v. Leisa Lane (NFP)
49A02-1308-DR-698
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of John Lane’s motion for relief from judgment. Lane may file a notice of appeal from the dissolution decree with the clerk of Court of Appeals within 30 days of this opinion being certified.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: R.J.L.E. (Minor Child), and B.E. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1311-JT-450
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.T. (Minor Child), and R.M. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1309-JT-396
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

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