ILNews

Opinions May 21, 2014

May 21, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jacob Herron v. State of Indiana
56A03-1306-CR-210
Criminal. Reverses convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony receiving stolen property. The jury may have relied on the impeachment evidence as substantive evidence in this case. Remands for retrial, if the state chooses. Judge Riley dissents in part, finding enough circumstantial evidence to convict Herron.

Tierra Rae Pierson, a Minor, Deceased, by her next friend and parent, Betina Pierson, and Betina Pierson, Individually, and Ryan Pierson, Individually v. Service America Corporation, et al.
49A02-1307-CT-561
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Centerplate on the Piersons’ negligence claim. Reasonable inferences to be drawn from the designated materials could permit a fact-finder to conclude that a Centerplate designee served Gaff beer while knowing him to be visibly intoxicated. Gaff later drove while intoxicated and struck and killed Tierra Rae Pierson. As Centerplate did not, based upon undisputed facts, negate an element of the negligence claim, summary judgment was improvidently granted.

Wayne Hurd v. State of Indiana
49A02-1309-CR-753
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery and the decision to exclude Hurd’s mother as a witness. Reverses imposition of a probation condition that Hurd not go within a nearly 2-mile radius of 38th and College in Indianapolis. Remands with instructions to vacate any pending probation violations based upon that condition. The trial court abused its discretion in imposing that condition because it was not reasonably related to his treatment and the protection of the public safety.  

Jeremy Lyn Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1307-CR-670
Criminal. Affirms seven-year sentence for Class C felony battery by means of a deadly weapon.

Brice L. Webb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1305-CR-263
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Brandan L. Martin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A02-1311-CR-966
Criminal. Affirms four-year sentence for Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Tina Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1309-CR-447
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of methamphetamine.

In the Matter of: J.J., F.J., J.O., & C.O., Minor Children, and M.O., Mother v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
06A01-1310-JC-479
Juvenile. Affirms determination that the four children are children in need of services.

The Indiana Supreme Court and 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. 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