ILNews

Opinions June 9, 2014

June 9, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline June 6:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Matthew Whitfield v. International Truck and Engine Corp.
13-1876
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Affirms in part and reverses in part ruling in favor of International Truck and Engine Corp. on Whitfield’s action alleging discrimination in failure to hire and violations of the Civil Rights Act. The District Court ignored some evidence or made conclusions not supported by the evidence. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Tax Court
Housing Partnerships, Inc. v. Tom Owens, Bartholomew County Assessor
49T10-1005-TA-23
Tax. Affirms Indiana Board of Tax Review’s holding that for the 2006 tax year, Housing Partnerships Inc. failed to show that its rental properties qualified for the charitable purposes exemption provided in I.C. 6-1.1-10-16. Housing Partnerships has not demonstrated that the final determination is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or contrary to the law.

June 9
Indiana Court of Appeals

Michael Dustin Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A01-1308-CR-350
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in a Schedule I controlled substance.

Jarod G. Allred v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A01-1309-CR-393
Criminal. Reverses two convictions of Class B felony dealing in a Schedule III controlled substance. Judge Bailey dissents.

Nathaniel Baston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A05-1311-CR-559
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

In the Matter of the Adoption of H.S. and D.S., R.S. v. V.C. and M.C. and D.S. and S.S. (NFP)
85A02-1311-AD-996
Adoption. Affirms order granting petitions to adopt H.S. and D.S.

In the Matter of Commitment of E.L., E.L. v. Indiana University Health-Bloomington Hospital and Terri Klingelhoefer, MA, LSW (NFP)
53A05-1311-MH-571
Mental health. Dismisses appeal of temporary involuntary commitment since the commitment ended Jan. 13.

Bageera Taylor, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A04-1307-CR-328
Criminal. Reverses sentence for Class D felonies strangulation and residential entry and remands for further proceedings. Judge Robb dissents.

The Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Tax Court posted no opinions Monday prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions Monday before 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