ILNews

Opinions April 12, 2011

April 12, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Cassandra Johnson and Jarrett Buse v. Anya E. Wait, et al.
82A01-0910-CV-498
Civil. Affirms the jury instruction on contributory negligence, finding sufficient evidence to support giving it. The trial court didn’t err by refusing to give the tendered instruction on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur offered by Johnson and Buse because there is a dearth of evidence as to exactly how and when Johnson’s shoulder injuries occurred. Affirms trial court allowance of a defense orthopedic expert witness to testify as to his opinions on causation.

Phyllis and Michael Klosinski v. Cordry Sweetwater Conservancy District
07A01-1008-PL-429
Civil plenary. Reverses finding that the Klosinskis were entitled to bring the action for an injunction against the conservancy district for anything other than the septic inspection program. The district concedes that the couple has an actual or active controversy with the district regarding participation in the septic inspection program. Reverses finding that the couple was adversely affected regarding the septic inspection program. The district wasn’t acting outside of its statutory authority when it implemented the septic inspection program. Affirms denial of the Klosinskis’ request for an injunction regarding the septic inspection program. Judge Baker concurs in part and dissents in part.

Lamar M. Crawford v. State of Indiana
49A05-1006-CR-377
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it quashed part of Crawford’s request for production of documents to a nonparty television production company, and the state produced sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crawford committed murder.

Jessica Borjas v. State of Indiana
49A02-1009-CR-1048
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class C felony forgery, stating that even though no paper record existed of Jessica Borjas forging Arie Hornbeak’s signature for two purchases, the digital signatures were sufficient evidence to convict.

John Grimes v. Tamara Grimes (NFP)
48A02-1007-DR-825
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s decision to deny John Grimes’ motion to correct error in a post-dissolution proceeding.

Sherrill Essett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-481
Criminal. Reverses jury trial’s conviction of Sherrill Essett for Class D felony theft, stating evidence was not sufficient to support conviction.

Charlotte A. Hunt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1010-CR-628
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

John Mark Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A04-1006-CR-390
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony receiving stolen property and Class B felony conspiracy to commit burglary. Affirms court’s determination that John Mark Harris is a habitual offender and affirms sentences.

Adoption of J.H.; I.H. v. J.R. & W.R. (NFP)
29A02-1009-AD-1091
Adoption. Affirms trial court’s ruling that father’s consent to adoption was not required.

Bryant Carr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1009-CR-962
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony strangulation and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Martha J. Tichenor v. Daniel Dodson (NFP)
07A01-1006-PO-285
Order of protection. Reverses protection order in favor of Daniel Dodson, et al., stating that repeated e-mails do not fall under protection statute.

Brice Webb v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A05-1007-CR-517
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Sieb Corp., Inc., Kurt Siebert, et al. v. Laidig Systems, Inc., Mishawaka Leasing Corp., et al. (NFP)
71A03-1010-CT-531
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s summary judgment in favor of DJ Construction, Progressive, and Clarkco. Reverses trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Laidig Systems, Wyn, and Mishawaka Leasing Corp., and remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of E.C. & J.V.; J.V. v. IDCS (NFP)
71A04-1010-JT-630
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms trial court’s termination of father’s parental rights.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.G., J.S., & K.S.; G.S. v. IDCS (NFP)
02A03-1009-JT-489
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms trial court’s termination of father’s parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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