ILNews

Opinions Dec. 16, 2010

December 16, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
William Hurst v. State of Indiana
49A02-1004-CR-378
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained upon the execution of a search warrant. To the extent the trial court concluded that Eric Thomas was inherently credible simply because he was a cooperating citizen informant, the trial court erred. A texted photo to Thomas corroborated the hearsay and there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause.

Anne W. Murphy, et al. v. Paul Terrell, et al.
49A04-1003-PL-198
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Terrell and the class on their suit for injunctive relief against the state. Unsuccessful applicants for Medicaid disability benefits do not have a constitutional right to an in-person administrative hearing. Remands for summary judgment in favor of the state.

St. Mary Medical Center v. Marsha Bakewell
45A03-1004-CT-227
Civil tort. Affirms grant of Bakewell’s motion to correct error. Bakewell’s allegation may proceed under a premises liability theory, even though originally she also pursued as a medical malpractice claim.

Lightpoint Impressions, LLC v. Metropolitan Dev. Comm. of Marion County
49A02-1004-MI-435
Miscellaneous. Affirms that the Metropolitan Development Commission may hear appeals of decisions of the Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals. Reverses grant of the MDC’s motion for summary judgment because it’s not clear whether the MDC had issued a final decision in the matter before Lightpoint appealed.

City of Kokomo, et al. v. Florence Pogue, et al.
34A02-1003-MI-356
Miscellaneous. Reverses denial of Kokomo’s motion to dismiss a remonstrance petition filed by a group of landowners whose land Kokomo wants to annex. The trial court erred in finding certain waivers of the right to remonstrate in exchange for connecting to the sewer system to be ineffective. Excluding those people’s signatures on the remonstrance petition causes the percentage of valid landowner signatures to fall below the statutorily-mandated minimum 65 percent.

R.D. v. Review Board
93A02-1005-EX-559
Civil. Reverses denial of R.D.’s application to attend the Art Institute for retraining because of the cost difference between that school and Ivy Tech. There is no substantial evidence supporting the review board’s denial. R.D.s’ request satisfies the “reasonable cost” requirement of 20 C.F.R. section 617.22(a)(6) and is consistent with the purpose of the Trade Act of 1974. Remands for further proceedings. Chief Judge Baker dissents.

Joseph Prewitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A05-1004-CR-314
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft. Remands with instructions to award the proper amount of credit time and to correct clerical errors.

Carlos Morales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-599
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony sexual battery and reverses conviction of Class D felony criminal confinement. Remands with instructions to vacate the criminal confinement conviction.

Byron Dixon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1005-CR-314
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony carjacking.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.R.; C.P.R. v. IDCS and Guardian Ad Litem program (NFP)
47A04-1007-JT-458
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Joseph Prewitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1004-CR-238
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are suspended.

Terrence L. Oliver v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-0912-CR-564
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Indiana Tax Court had 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