ILNews

Opinions Feb. 11, 2011

February 11, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Mouhamadou M. Sow v. Fortville Police Department, et al.
10-2188
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young
Civil. Affirms District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the Fortville Police Department, Officer Michael Fuller of the Fortville Police Department, and the McCordsville Police Department. Sow’s action was brought under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983, 1985, and 1986 after he was arrest for forgery but the charges were later dropped. Sow also alleged numerous state law claims, asserting that the District Court had supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

The Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of Patrick K. Rocchio
98S00-0911-DI-533
Discipline. Suspends Rocchio from the practice of law for at least 180 days without automatic reinstatement. He was charged with violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 7.2(c)(3) and 5.5(b)(2), but found to also have violated 7.2(d)(2), 7.3(c). His conduct during the disciplinary process demonstrates his inability to recognize his clear violations of this state's disciplinary rules, his contempt for those rules and this disciplinary process, and his lack of appreciation for the role of the court's hearing officer and Disciplinary Commission members and staff led to his suspension without automatic reinstatement. Justice Rucker dissents to length of suspension.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Amir H. Sanjari v. State of Indiana
20A03-1007-CR-384
Criminal. Vacates Sanjari’s conviction and five-year sentence on his second count of Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent due to double jeopardy constraints. Affirms his conviction of and five-year sentence for the first count of Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent, with fines, costs, and restitution.

Alexander R. Pala v. Annare L. Pala Loubser
91A05-1004-DR-271
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of Loubser’s motion to terminate maintenance award. Based upon review of the record, the appellate court can’t say that the evidence leaves them with the firm conviction that a mistake was made or that the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.

T.L. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development
93A02-1007-EX-773
Civil. Reverses and remands denial of T.L.’s motion to reinstate his appeal from an adverse determination of his claim for unemployment benefits. The following issue was presented for review: whether the board abused its discretion by adopting the findings and conclusions of the director, thereby affirming the denial of the request to reinstate T.L.’s appeal.

P.K.E. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and D.Z.
93A02-1007-EX-799
Civil. Affirms administrative law judge’s decision that P.K.E. had not discharged D.Z. for just cause and D.Z. was therefore entitled to unemployment benefits. The review board affirmed the ALJ’s decision and P.K.E. appealed.

David Martinez Zarate v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-1007-CR-356
Criminal. Affirms sentence for conviction of dealing in cocaine, a Class B felony.

Juan Salazar-Arvisu v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-0908-PC-379
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Anthony A. Coffey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1006-CR-753
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

William T. Sexton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1005-CR-352
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B misdemeanor false informing and Class D felony attempting to acquire a legend drug by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or subterfuge.

Robert W. Gard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1004-CR-249
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s grant of the state’s motion for relief from order, which set aside its previous order granting Gard’s motion to suppress.

Michael J. Huffman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1003-PC-421
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Paternity of C.F.; Rita K. Manns v. Richard A. Faler (NFP)
37A04-1009-JP-573
Juvenile. Reverses and remands order of the trial court emancipating Manns’ son and terminating the support obligation of Faler.

William E. Cathey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1006-CR-314
Criminal. Affirms sentence following convictions of two counts of Class D felony theft.

Candace Brewer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1008-CR-1024
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.

Donald R. Tweedy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1007-CR-327
Criminal. Affirms convictions of maintaining a common nuisance as a Class D felony, and driving while suspended as a Class A misdemeanor.

David Alan Davis Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1005-CR-648
Criminal. Reverses termination from the Madison County Drug Court Program and remands with instructions.

Michael Todd Hughes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1008-CR-891
Criminal. Affirms denial of Hughes’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

James E. McGee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1007-CR-413
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of child molesting as Class A felonies.

Kenneth L. Duckworth Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A04-1009-CR-543
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s finding Duckworth is a habitual offender following his three convictions for dealing in a controlled substance, one as a Class A felony and the other two as Class B felonies.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before 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