ILNews

Opinions April 10, 2013

April 10, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Kevin B. McCarthy, et al., and Langsenkamp Family Apostolate, et al. v. Patricia Ann Fuller, et al.
12-2157, 12-2257, 12-2262
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. The District Court’s denial of McCarthy’s motion that the court take judicial notice of the Holy See’s rulings on Fuller’s status in the Roman Catholic Church is reversed, with a reminder to the district court that federal courts are not empowered to decide (or to allow juries to decide) religious questions. The other two appeals are dismissed.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Valentin Escobedo v. State of Indiana
71A03-1202-CR-60
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class A felony battery and Class D felony neglect of a dependent. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Dr. Stephens to testify while limiting his testimony or in allowing the state to present rebuttal evidence.

Harold Haggerty v. Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Merom Generating Station
77A01-1206-CT-293
Civil tort. Affirms grant of summary judgment to Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative Inc. on Haggerty’s negligence claim. Hoosier Energy successfully negated the element of duty in Haggerty’s negligence claim.

In the Matter of A.W. & C.S., Children in Need of Services; and L.D., Mother v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1208-JC-692
Juvenile. Affirms determination that the two minor children are children in need of services.

Jake E. Estes v. State of Indiana (NFP)

39A01-1205-CR-214
Criminal.  Affirms conviction and sentence for dealing in marijuana as a Class D felony. Reverses and remands with instructions that the court vacate Estes’ conviction of possession of marijuana as a Class D felony based on double jeopardy principles. Judge Bailey dissents.

Timothy Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A04-1211-PC-591
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jeff Rolston and Jana Rolston v. Brad's Realty and Property Management, LLC, and Dan L. Bradbury (NFP)
20A04-1209-CC-489
Civil collection. Affirms denial of the Rolstons’ motion to correct error on the judgment denying their claim for fraud, and the denial of Brad’s Realty’s motion to have the Rolstons pay attorney fees.

Demetrius Damon Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1205-CR-230
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony rape, Class B felony criminal confinement enhanced because of the use of a firearm, Class D felony criminal recklessness, Class B felony robbery, Class A felony burglary, two counts of Class D felony theft and determination Taylor is a habitual offender.

Kevin Hester v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-CR-381
Criminal. Affirms sentence for murder.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by 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