ILNews

Opinions Aug. 4, 2011

August 4, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Terrence Williams v. State of Indiana
49A02-1101-CR-9
Criminal. Reverses denial of Williams’ petition that a handgun seized by police be released to his counsel. Williams asked the gun be returned after his carrying a handgun without a license charge was dismissed. Williams’ inability to lawfully possess a handgun, without more, doesn’t prevent the return of the gun to his counsel.  

J.W.B. v. Review Board
93A02-1101-EX-5
Agency appeal. Reverses administrative law judge’s denial of J.W.B.’s motion for a continuance of his unemployment insurance appeal hearing and the judge’s decision to proceed to disposition without his participation. The ALJ abused her discretion by denying the requests for a continuance. Remands with instructions to the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development to grant J.W.B. a hearing upon due notice.

Cynthia Welch v. Shawn D. Young, et al.
79A02-1012-CT-1407
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Shawn Young and remands for further proceedings. There are issues of fact as to whether the injury took place on the field or outside the playing area, and whether the game had started. Affirms dismissing Young to the extent his potential liability was premised on his status as an employee of a governmental entity.

Lisa Fouce v. State of Indiana (NFP)

27A04-1011-CR-695
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class C felony forgery and Class D felony theft.

Robert Holland v. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Co., et al. (NFP)
45A04-1004-PL-324
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of intervenor Richard Loveless in Robert Holland’s quite title lawsuit.

Roy Kelley, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1011-CR-1197
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony aggravated battery.

Timothy & Stephanie Mackall v. Cathedral Trustees, Inc. (NFP)

49A02-1104-CC-281
Civil collections. Affirms the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to enforce its judgment entered in favor of Cathedral for the Mackalls’ breach of contract or non-payment of tuition.

Roy Austin Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
77A05-1011-PL-726
Civil plenary. Affirms partial summary judgment to the Indiana Department of Correction regarding whether he filed a notice with the Indiana attorney general and IDOC within 180 days of his loss as required by the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

Bryan E. Clark v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A01-1011-CR-604
Criminal. Affirms 12-year sentence executed in the Department of Correction.

Betsy Waters v. Indiana State University (NFP)
93A02-1101-EX-78
Agency appeal. Reverses denial of worker’s compensation benefits and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Adoption of X.B.M.; H.P. and A.P. v. K.M. (NFP)
68A05-1012-AD-775
Adoption. Affirms denial of H.P. and A.P.’s petition to adopt their grandson.

Joel T. Martinez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1325
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangered a person.

Marcus Bailey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1012-CR-761
Criminal.  Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

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