ILNews

Opinions April 1, 2013

April 1, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. v. Marsh Supermarkets, LLC
29A02-1201-PL-4
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Marsh Supermarkets. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Marsh damages based on Roche’s rental obligation under the 18-year term of the sublease after Roche terminated it over a subordination non-disturbance and attornment agreement. Judge Crone dissents.

Michael L. Curtis v. State of Indiana

49A02-1203-MI-271
Miscellaneous. Grants state’s petition for rehearing but still concludes the trial court abused its discretion by denying Curtis’ motion for relief from judgment. Finds that where the underlying offense actually charged is fraud and not theft or conversion, there is no predicate for forfeiture.

Daniel G. Suber & Associates v. Edward Smith (NFP)
45A04-1205-CT-278
Civil tort. Affirms grant of Smith’s motion to enforce an equitable lien and the award of attorney fees. Denies Smith’s request for appellate attorney fees.

Edward E. Wroblewski v. Linda M. (Wroblewski) Cain (NFP)
33A01-1204-DR-170
Domestic relation. Affirms judgment issued in favor of Linda Cain resolving various petitions and motions related to the post-secondary education component of the parties’ child support obligations.

Aaron Ingle v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1206-CR-538
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class D felony neglect of a dependent.

Rickie B. Gilliam v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1206-CR-482
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for two counts of Class A felony attempted murder and one count of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Charles Dunmore v. State of Indiana (NFP)

34A02-1209-CR-769
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of cocaine and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Trivest Partnership, L.P. v. James Gagan, Fred Wittlinger, Jack Allen and Eugene Deutsch (NFP)
45A03-1205-CT-208
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Trivest Partner’s motion for attorney fees against Gagan, Wittlinger, Allen and Deutsch.

Fayette County Board of Commissioners v. Howard Price (NFP)
21A04-1208-PL-434
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the board of commissioner’s motion for summary judgment after the court concluded that the board’s decision not to reappointment Price as director of highway operations was a quasi-judicial decision that is subject to judicial review.

Baldemar Lopez Saldana v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1203-PC-128
Post conviction. Remands with instructions to dismiss Saldana’s appeal for relief from a ruling entered against him.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: W.S.; B.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
34A02-1210-JT-867
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Andrew Ray Golden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A05-1205-CR-243
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony manufacturing methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a public park and Class D felony unlawful possession of a hypodermic needle.

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