ILNews

Opinions April 8, 2011

April 8, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Samuel D. Raisor, et al. v. Edward O. Carter, et al.
49A05-1010-CT-629
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Jimmie’s Raceway Pub, in which the trial court found the Raisors’ action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions and the amended complaint couldn’t relate back to the original filing date because Jimmie’s received notice of the action after the expiration of the 120-day period allowed under Ind. Trial Rule 15(C). Jimmie’s wasn’t prejudiced as the owner learned of the suit within the two-year statute of limitations. Assuming the requirements of T.R. 15(C) are otherwise met, the 120-day limit will be applied only to enlarge the applicable statute of limitations.

Gerald W. Sandefur v. State of Indiana
71A05-1009-CR-605
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy and Class D felony battery and remands with instructions to vacate the conviction and sentence for Class A misdemeanor battery. The arresting officer’s testimony fit the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict Sandefur of battery, but he can’t be convicted of both the misdemeanor and felony on double jeopardy grounds.

Dana Birdin v. Barbara Blakemore (NFP)
49A02-1007-EU-833
Estate unsupervised. Affirms judgment against Birdin in the amount of $9,450 on a conversion claim and more than $75,000 on a replevin claim and order that Birdin pay Blakemore’s attorney fees.

Mark Gregory v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1009-CR-984
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Gregory serve his remaining term of approximately 65 years in prison.

Joseph Dixon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1008-CR-488
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to three counts of Class B felony burglary and one count of Class C felony burglary.

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