ILNews

Opinions Dec. 28, 2010

December 28, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Monday:

Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of Jane G. Cotton
48S00-0910-DI-497
Discipline. Suspends Cotton for 30 days without automatic reinstatement for engaging in attorney misconduct in an improper ex parte communication with a judge and by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Justice Sullivan dissents, arguing for at least a 90-day suspension.

Indiana Tax Court
Lake County Assessor, North Township Assessor, et al. v. Amoco Sulfur Recovery Corp., and BP Products North America, Inc. (NFP)
49T10-1010-TA-55
Tax. Denies Amoco and BP’s motion to dismiss.

Today’s opinions

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Richard Childress Jr. v. State of Indiana
45A03-0911-CR-520
Criminal. Affirms convictions of robbery and criminal confinement, both Class B felonies. On appeal, appellant-defendant raised the sole issue of whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence the state did not disclose until the second day of trial. Court of Appeals concluded the state’s late disclosure did not impair his right to a fair trial.

Warren L. Williams, et al. v. David Orentlicher, et al., as Trustees of the Indiana State Teachers Association Insurance Trust
49A02-1003-PL-249
Civil. Affirms trial court’s denial of Warren L. Williams and Robert Frankel’s motion to compel arbitration. Williams and Frankel are former employees of the ISTA. They also acted as fiduciaries with the ISTA Insurance Trust, an entity legally separate and distinct from the ISTA. At issue was whether the Trust was bound by the arbitration provisions of Williams’ and Frankel’s employment agreements with the ISTA.

Cynthia Ann Painter v. Lee Andrew Granderson (NFP)
65A04-1003-DR-203
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order that awarded custody of the parties’ minor daughter, R.K., to appellee-respondent father.

Natasha R. Lafave v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A01-1006-CR-271
Criminal. Reverses and remands conviction of illegal possession of alcoholic beverages for consumption, a Class C misdemeanor.

Carla Tabor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-358
Criminal. Affirms conviction of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud or deceit, a Class D felony; reverses and remands conviction of possession of a controlled substance, a Class D felony.

Richard Huffman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-CR-1057
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief related to an educational credit against the release date.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of A.P., et al.; K.G. and T.G. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
23A04-1004-JT-334
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s judgment terminating K.G. and T.G’s parental rights to their children.

Indiana Tax Court had 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