ILNews

Opinions Dec. 20, 2011

December 20, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Christopher A. Bryant v. State of Indiana
45A03-1101-CR-11
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for two counts of Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor marijuana possession and Bryant’s admission that he is a habitual substance offender, holding that his extensive arrest record renders harmless any error the trial court may have made.

Commissioner of Labor on the Relation of Stephen R. Shofstall, Edward C. Posey, and Deborah Posey v. Int'l Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, CLC District Council 91
49A02-1103-PL-263
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, which stated Shofstall and the Poseys were not entitled to vacation pay. Holds that union bylaws show vacation pay was in addition to 52 weeks of compensation per year.

Lance McCloud v. State of Indiana
49A05-1102-CR-77
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to dismiss pending charges, holding that the delay in McCloud’s trial date was not excessive and was caused by his own act. Holds that the delay did not result in actual prejudice.

James R. Lockhart, Jr. v. Lisa (Lockhart) Guyer (NFP)
29A02-1103-DR-208
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s determination that quitclaim deed did not disallow wife to 45 percent of net value of property and remands to the trial court to determine wife’s share. Also remands with instructions to vacate order regarding attorney fees and to enter an order requiring the wife to repay husband overpayment of child support.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of H.W. and H.S.; T.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
48A02-1105-JT-470
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

William Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A04-1104-CR-272
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for two counts of Class A felony child molestation.

Gary Joe Harrison v. Bill Wilson (NFP)
46A05-1104-CR-226
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Wilson and holds that the case was not properly before the trial court because Harrison failed to exhaust his administrative remedies through the Indiana State Prison in his efforts to receive educational credit time.

Christopher W. Hovis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A03-1011-CR-613
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony assisting a criminal.

Cherokee Development, Inc. v. Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. (NFP)
49A04-1106-CC-274
Collections. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ohio Farmers Insurance Co. and denies Ohio Farmer’s request for appellate attorney fees.

James A. Mudd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1105-CR-192
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A and Class C felony child molesting.

Andrew M. Royer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1106-PC-325
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In Re: The Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of D.F. & R.F. and B.G. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
84A01-1105-JT-308
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

Thomas L. Kessinger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1105-CR-240
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of sentence, as sentence has already been served.

Derrick D. Jeter, M.D. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1101-MI-44
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s dismissal of Jeter’s petition for judicial review of an order by the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana revoking his license, holding the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction was not warranted.

S. (M.) O. v. S.M. (NFP)
29A04-1104-DR-203
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s judgment ordering father to continue to provide health insurance for the parties’ children.

Great Hospitality Services, Inc. v. Karl Bauer (NFP)
64A03-1107-CT-295
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to set aside default judgment in favor of Bauer on his personal injury complaint against Great Hospitality.

In Re: The Paternity of P.B.; D.B. v. M.B. (NFP)
03A01-1012-JP-653
Juvenile. On petition from both mother and father for rehearing, the appeals court stated that while it initially denied the father’s request for attorney fees, it now agrees that attorney fees should be assessed against the mother who has acted in procedural bad faith. Affirms original opinion that father’s parenting time was appropriate.

C.C. v. Review Board of the Ind. Dept. of Workforce Development and Employer (NFP)
93A02-1008-EX-1000
Civil. Affirms finding by the Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board that C.C. was terminated for just cause and therefore is not entitled to unemployment benefits.

Indiana Tax Court and Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

ADVERTISEMENT