ILNews

Opinions April 11, 2013

April 11, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Utility Center, Inc. d/b/a Aqua Indiana, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, Indiana
90S04-1208-PL-450
Civil plenary. Reverses the judgment of the trial court granting the city’s motion to strike a jury request by Aqua Indiana and remands this cause for further proceedings. Concludes that “rehear the matter of the assessment de novo” within the meaning of Indiana Code 32-24-2-11(a) contemplates a new hearing with trial and judgment as in all other civil actions. And where a party so requests, a trial by jury.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Joseph Martin Radcliff and Coastal Property Management LLC, a/k/a CPM Construction of Indiana
29A04-1111-CT-571
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict of $14.5 million in favor of Radcliff and his company on their defamation counterclaim against State Farm. Concludes that State Farm is not entitled to judgment on the counterclaim on the defenses of the public interest privilege for crime reporting and statutory immunity, and Radcliff failed to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Upholds the jury verdict that Radcliff proved actual malice by clear and convincing evidence and holds that State Farm is not entitled to a new trial on damages.

Jon J. Reid v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1207-PC-362
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.  

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

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