ILNews

Opinions Dec. 21, 2011

December 21, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
In the Matter of: Lawrence T. Newman
49S00-0907-DI-331
Discipline. Suspends Lawrence Newman for 18 months without automatic reinstatement. Finds he committed misconduct by failing to comply with a client's reasonable requests for an accounting of the hours he worked prior to being discharged, by charging an unreasonable fee, by failing to withdraw from representation promptly after being discharged and by failing to return the client's file after its retention was no longer necessary to secure payment of his fee. Justice Rucker dissents in part and Justice David did not participate in the case.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Hans Maldonado v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A05-1104-CR-231
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Dominick L. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1105-CR-219
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

Arthur D. Miles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1104-PC-320
Post conviction. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Thomas Aufiero v. Daniel Ricks (NFP)
79A04-1107-PO-350
Protection order. Affirms entry of the protective order. Reverses order with respect to the provision limiting Aufiero from being present on the premises of Ricks’ place of employment and remands for reconsideration of that provision’s scope.

Jesse J. Dixon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A05-1003-CR-822
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for two counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting.

Lyndon J. Woodward v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1104-CR-219
Criminal. Affirms convictions of possession of paraphernalia as a Class A misdemeanor and two counts of Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.

Michael A. Caputo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1103-PC-123
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Supreme Court and 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