ILNews

Opinions Aug. 4, 2014

August 4, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Bruce Carneil Webster v. John F. Caraway, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute
14-1049
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Webster’s petition for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. Agrees with District Court’s decision that the petition is blocked by Section 2255(e), under which Webster had previously sought collateral relief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the circuit where he had committed his crime.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Domingo Gonzalez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A04-1312-CR-643
Criminal.  Affirms convictions of Class D felony criminal confinement and Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle.

Tiffany Thompson, Jason Thompson, and Cassie Thompson v. Fields Gutter & Siding, Inc., Pamela Sue Fields, and Michael C. Ford, Jr. (NFP)
32A05-1403-CT-131
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Fields Gutter & Siding Inc., Fields and Ford on the Thompsons’ lawsuit alleging FGS was liable for Ford’s negligent acts under the theory of respondeat superior and the company breached its common law duty to use reasonable care.

Eric P. Mains v. Citibank, NA as Trustee for WAMU Series 2007-HE2 Trust (NFP)
10A04-1309-MF-450
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment against Mains in a mortgage foreclosure action brought against him and Anna V. Mains by Citibank.

Antoinette Crosslin v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Kenya Hamilton (NFP)
93A02-1305-EX-413
Agency action. Affirms determination Crosslin is ineligible for unemployment benefits.

 

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