ILNews

Opinions, Aug. 3, 2011

August 3, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
T.W. v. Review Board
93A02-1011-EX-1223
Agency action. Reverses finding that T.W. was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits as a result of his failure to disclose self-employment. There is no statutory or evidentiary basis for a finding that T.W.’s failure to disclose his relationship with Professional Labor Services would disqualify him from receiving benefits, reduce his benefits, or render him ineligible for benefits or extended benefits. Remands for further proceedings.

Martin Roy Emerson v. State of Indiana
07A01-1009-CR-486
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class C felony operating a vehicle while driving privileges are forfeited for life. The prosecutor’s questions regarding bullying during voir dire and suggestions during opening and closing arguments that Emerson was a bully did not amount to a fundamental error. Affirms in all other respects. Senior Judge Barteau dissents in part.

Brian D. Hayes v. Westminster Village North, Inc.
49A02-1010-CT-1141
Civil. Reverses summary judgment for Westminster Village North in Hayes’ survivor action for negligence caused by medical malpractice and claim for wrongful death. There is a dispute of fact as to whether Dorothy Rodarmel was mentally incompetent and therefore under a legal disability and Indiana’s Journey’s Account Statute applies. Remands for further proceedings.

Dustin L. Coleman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A02-1012-CR-1397
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony neglect of a dependent.

John G. Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1011-CR-574
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in a schedule II controlled substance.

David W. Glasgow v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1012-CR-817
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Thaddeus Rodriguez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A05-1002-CR-69
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Larry D. Nash-Aleman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-CR-1183
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony strangulation, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, and Class A misdemeanor interfering with the reporting of a crime.

Michael E. Hurst v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1010-CR-622
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony criminal recklessness.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.S., et al.; A.S. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
02A03-1012-JT-657
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT