ILNews

Opinions April 14, 2014

April 14, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday:
In the Matter of: Anonymous
45S00-1301-DI-33
Discipline. Issues private reprimand to Lake County attorney who engaged in misconduct by making false or misleading communications regarding legal services and failing to include an office address in public communication. Respondent must pay $250 fee and one-half of the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

Monday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Ball State University v. Jennifer Irons, In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Irons, Wife, and Scott Irons, Husband
45A03-1307-DR-296
Domestic relation. Dismisses Ball State’s appeal of the order to release the college transcript of Jennifer Irons’ child. This appeal was not properly brought under Appellate Rule 14(A)(3). Denies Jennifer Irons’ request for appellate attorney fees. Judge Brown concurs in part and dissents in part.

Paula Rorer (Hubbard) v. William Shane Rorer (NFP)
87A04-1310-DR-494
Domestic relation. Affirms finding of indirect contempt against Hubbard in post-dissolution proceedings.

In re the Marriage of: Annette M. Huseman, f/k/a Annette M. Mantis v. Angelo N. Mantis (NFP)
45A04-1307-DR-351
Domestic relation. Reverses the trial court’s order denying mother’s motion to correct errors and the court’s April 23, 2013, order related to father’s total arrearage and the additional weekly amount he must pay toward his arrearage. Affirms the phase-in schedule of father’s modified support payments, and remands for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Judge Robb dissents.

Tyrone A. Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-PC-787
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jeremy J. Holden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1308-CR-436
Criminal. Affirms 10-year sentence for Class B felony armed robbery.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.J. and A.J. (Minor Children) and S.J. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A04-1309-JT-465
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Donald William Myers, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A03-1305-CR-173
Criminal. Reverses Myers’ four convictions of Class A felony attempted murder.

Jay Darland and Kathleen Darland v. Elizabeth Rupp (NFP)
06A04-1308-PL-403
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Rupp on the Darlands’ complaint seeking damages arising from a car accident.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions 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. 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