ILNews

Opinions Feb. 16, 2011

February 16, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jeff Whitely, et al. v. Anthony Moravec, et al.
09-3302
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge David F. Hamilton.
Civil. Plaintiffs sued an Indiana company incorporated in New York to satisfy the penalty claims after the Indiana company entered into bankruptcy and was late paying wages and fringe benefits. Affirms the District Court correctly concluded that New York Bus. Corp. L. Section 630(a) doesn’t make defendants liable for a penalty under Indiana law.

Indiana Supreme Court
Jeffrey Tharp v. State of Indiana
49S02-1005-CR-256
Criminal. Reverses Tharp’s conviction of invasion of privacy. The evidence is insufficient that he received adequate notice of the protective order.

Richard Joslyn v. State of Indiana
49S04-1102-CR-85
Criminal. Affirms Joslyn’s convictions of stalking and invasion of privacy. The minor defect in the service of a protective order was cured by Joslyn’s statements to police and his testimony at trial that he found the protective order at his residence.

Indiana Court of Appeals
James M. Thompson, D.O. v. Amy Gerowitz, et al.
49A05-1005-CT-296
Civil tort. Affirms the trial court properly denied Dr. Thompson’s motion for judgment on the evidence on the issue of causation. Thompson waived his argument regarding judgment on the evidence on the issue of informed consent because he raised it for the first time on appeal. Orders a new trial based on the allegations of juror misconduct and bias.

Don J. Herrington Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1008-CR-924
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony intimidation.

Keith Hopkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1007-CR-426
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

D'Wan Maxwell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-622
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

SS Enterprise v. La Joya Apartment, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1005-CC-592
Civil collections. Affirms dismissal with prejudice of SS Enterprise’s complaint against La Joya Apartment.

Barbara L. Earle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
26A01-1005-CR-250
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for murder.

Joey Addison v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-354
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

Emily R. Meyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A05-1007-CR-425
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder.

Timothy Allen Anderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1007-CR-436
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Tony Lee Parish v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1006-CR-398
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary and sentences for that conviction, Class B felony conspiracy to commit robbery, and Class B felony robbery.

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