ILNews

Opinions Aug. 5, 2011

August 5, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jayne A. Mathews-Sheets v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
10-3746
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Reverses denial of request for $25,200 in attorney fees after prevailing in a suit for Social Security disability benefits. On remand the plaintiff’s lawyer will have to show that without a cost-of-living increase that would bring the fee award up to $170 per hour, a lawyer capable of competently handling the challenge that his client mounted to the denial of Social Security disability benefits could not be found in the relevant geographical area to handle such a case.

Rik Lineback, Regional Director of the 25th Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the NLRB v. Irving Ready-Mix, Inc.
11-1371
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Jon E. DeGuilio.
Civil. Affirms injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act ordering Irving Ready-Mix Inc. to stop certain unfair labor practices pending a final administrative decision by the National Labor Relations Board. There was no error or abuse of discretion by the District judge.

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
City Savings Bank n/k/a LaPorte Savings Bank v. Eby Construction, LLC
64A03-1012-MF-611
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Eby Construction in its complaint that its mechanic’s lien has priority over mortgages held by LaPorte Savings Bank. The trial court erred when it disregarded clear statutory directives based upon equitable and public policy grounds. Remands for further proceedings.

Guardianship of L.W.; S.M. v. M.W. and S.W. (NFP)
33A01-1102-GU-79
Guardianship. Affirms denial of mother S.M.’s petition to terminate M.W. and S.W.’s guardianship over her son.

David and Karen Marks v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (NFP)
45A05-1011-CT-675
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for NIPSCO in the Markses’ negligence action.

Indiana Tax Court 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