ILNews

Opinions Aug. 27, 2014

August 27, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Judy Holcomb, Personal Representative of the Estate of Mable Louise Cochran, Deceased
49S05-1404-CC-209
Civil collection. Affirms award of $50,440 in attorney fees to the estate from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund. The fee cap provision in the Medical Malpractice Act does not directly apply to the fund to limit its liability. The fund may be required to pay more than 15 percent in attorney fees.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Kenneth Owen Scrogham v. Carolyn W. Colvin, acting commissioner of Social Security
13-3601
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Reverses denial of application for disability benefits and remands for further proceedings. The administrative law judge’s methodology was flawed in several respects. Three logical errors – overstating the significance of Scrogham’s daily activities, overreliance on his rehabilitative efforts as proof of his fitness for full-time work, and misinterpreting the significance of his extensive treatment – had a material effect on the ALJ’s credibility and residual functional capacity assessments.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Marquise Lee v. State of Indiana
49A02-1310-CR-869
Criminal. Grants rehearing and affirms Lee’s conviction of Class B felony attempted aggravated battery. Declines Lee’s request to follow the reasoning of the Young panel. Holds that he did not preserve this issue for appellate review and that the trial court did not commit fundamental error when it entered judgment against Lee for attempted aggravated battery as an inherently lesser included offense to the state’s charge of murder.

Thomas Walter Gorski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A04-1404-CR-148
Criminal. Affirms 28-year aggregate sentence for Class B felony neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury and attempted dealing in a narcotic drug as a Class B felony.

Cohen & Malad, LLP v. John P. Daly, Jr., Golitko & Daly, P.C. and Golitko Legal Group, P.C. (NFP)
29A02-1308-PL-741
Civil plenary. Affirms that Cohen & Malad is not due quantum meruit compensation from John Daly and Golitko & Daly after Daly took 24 cases with him when he left Cohen & Malad and joined Golitko & Daly.

Jaro Mayda II v. Melinda D. Barnette (NFP)
34A05-1403-CC-101
Civil collection. Affirms order granting Barnette’s motion to dismiss Mayda’s complaint against her alleging fraud, defamation and failure to repay a loan purportedly established by oral agreement.

Latoya C. Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-867
Criminal. Grants rehearing, but declines to reverse conviction of Class B felony attempted aggravated battery.

Layne L. Dellamuth and Anita M. Dellamuth v. Ken's Carpets Unlimited, Inc. d/b/a Carpets Unlimited (NFP)
74A01-1404-CC-165
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Carpets Unlimited on its complaint against the Dellamuths for failure to pay a balance owed on an account.

Evanston Insurance Company and Markel Corporation v. Samantha Meeks Family Practice, Inc., Samantha Meeks, and George Edwin Grant, et al. (NFP)
33A01-1401-PL-32
Civil plenary. Reverses and remands with instructions to deny the summary judgment motion of Meeks and her practice and grant the summary judgment motion of Evanston Insurance and Markel Corp. over whether a policy was in effect when Meeks made her claim.  

Frank Blythe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1312-CR-1061
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies dealing in a narcotic drug and dealing in a controlled substance.


 

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