ILNews

Opinions Feb. 13, 2013

February 13, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jesus Uribe
11-3590
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Affirms decision granting Uribe’s motion to suppress heroin found after traffic stop. The government failed to show that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Uribe’s vehicle to investigate why its registration was tied to a white Nissan whereas the Nissan Uribe was driving was blue. Investigatory stops based on color discrepancies alone are insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Estate of Samuel L. Tolley, Deceased; First Merchants Bank, N.A. v. Duane Earl Tolley, and Betty June Tolley
52A02-1208-EU-671
Estate, unsupervised. Reverses summary judgment to the estate of Samuel Tolley. Concludes that the Due Process Clause applies to Ind. Code 29-1-7-7. Even though First Merchants had actual notice of Samuel Tolley’s death, the phone call from the attorney for the personal representatives did not meet the requirement of informing the bank of the time period for filing a claim. Remands for further proceedings.

Robert Powell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A04-1207-CR-375
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony criminal deviate conduct.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: A.C., Minor Child, K.W., Mother, and J.C., Father v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A04-1206-JT-300
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights of mother and father.

Julia Patterson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1204-CR-300
Criminal. Reverses order Patterson pay $50 supplemental public defender fee and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Lee Ross v. State of Indiana (NFP)

61A01-1207-CR-306
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: T.B., M.B., and L.B., (Minor Children), and J.B., (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

02A03-1207-JT-336
Juvenile. Reverses termination of father’s parental rights and remands with instructions that the trial court enter additional findings to support its judgment.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by 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