ILNews

Opinions Aug. 3, 2010

August 3, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

F.B. Boushehry v. City of Indianapolis, et al.
49A05-1002-PL-55
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in the city’s favor because Boushehry’s claim did not meet the Indiana Tort Claims Act notice requirement.

Ron Droscha v. Scott Shepherd and Fort Wayne Area Association of Realtors
52A02-1001-PL-26
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of Shepherd and the association’s motions to dismiss Droscha’s petition to vacate an arbitration award.

James Chenoweth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-0912-CR-566
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting.

John W. Sawyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1001-CR-129
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Yul Anderson and Rachel Anderson v. Ronald E. Weldy (NFP)
30A01-0906-CV-271
Civil. Remands for the trial court to make a determination on Weldy’s claim of fraud and for contractual attorney fees and costs under the lease agreement. Rules the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in Weldy’s favor regarding his breach-of-contract claim, and that the court correctly dismissed the Andersons’ counterclaims of tortuous interference with a business relationship and slander.

Ashley Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1001-CR-7
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated in two separate causes, and affirms violation of probation in another cause.

Janell Peery v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
72A01-0910-CV-497
Civil. Affirms dismissal of petition for judicial review of Indiana Department of Child Services’ decision affirming substantiated findings of child abuse and neglect.

William G. McLaughlin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1002-CR-260
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for permission to file a belated notice of appeal.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions 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