ILNews

Opinions Aug. 6, 2012

August 6, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinons prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Donald Gregory Huls v. State of Indiana

64A04-1110-CR-552
Criminal. Affirms convictions of criminal recklessness, one as a Class D felony and one as a Class C felony. Affirms denial of motion for mistrial because the prosecutor’s isolated comment did not have a probable persuasive effect on the jury and did not place Huls in grave peril. His proposed jury instructions incorrectly stated the law on self-defense or the evidence did not support giving them.  

PNC Bank, National Association, et al. v. LA Development, Inc., Andrew L. Arbuckle, et al., and INTA, LLC v. PNC Bank, National Association, et al.
41A01-1107-MF-314
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses decision in favor of INTA in an action filed by PNC against LA Development, INTA, and two individuals. The subordination agreement is ambiguous, but concludes PNC did not relinquish all of its rights and remedies in the subordination agreement. Because PNC has shown the requisite provisions of Indiana Code 32-30-5-1 have been satisfied and PNC did not relinquish its mandatory right to the appointment of a receiver, the trial court order is erroneous. Remands for further proceedings.

Janet M. Wright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
11A04-1109-CR-506
Criminal. Affirms denial of Wright’s motion to suppress as to the marijuana found beside her house and the trial court’s deferring to rule on all evidence found inside the home and outbuildings due to insufficient evidence to address that matter. Remands for further proceedings.

Brian L. Millard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1201-CR-18
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness.

Preload, Inc. v. Hammond Water Works Department and Jeffrey Porter General Contractors, Inc. (NFP)
45A05-1201-PL-22
Civil plenary. Reverses the trial court order to the extent that the arbitration order says that Preload must be joined as a party in the arbitration between Jeffrey Porter and Hammond Water Works. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Mathias concurs in result.

Paul Edward McMinn v. Lisa Stephanie McMinn (NFP)
20A03-1106-DR-245
Domestic relation. Affirms in part the order which established that child H.McM. should continue his secondary education at a private, parochial high school. Remands for further proceedings.

 

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