ILNews

Opinions Feb. 18, 2014

February 18, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert Durall v. Mark S. Weinberger, M.D., Mark Weinberger, M.D., P.C., Merrillville Center for Advanced Surgery, LLC, and Nose and Sinus Center, LLC
45A03-1304-CT-103
Civil tort. Dismisses grant of partial summary judgment to Mark Weinberger and other defendants. This discretionary interlocutory appeal is untimely.

Tanner Piotrowski v. State of Indiana
46A03-1306-CR-222
Criminal. Affirms denial of Piotrowski’s motion to exclude any evidence or testimony from the state Department of Toxicology. After reviewing the relevant statutes, finds that the Legislature intended I.C. 10-20-2-7 to effectuate a transfer of control of the Department of Toxicology from the Indiana University School of Medicine to the state of Indiana. Although the Legislature transferred rulemaking authority to the state, it did not specifically require the state to promulgate a new set of rules regarding breath testing and gave the state discretion to rely upon the rules previously in existence. The court did not err when it denied Piotrowski’s motion to exclude.

In the Matter of the Adoption of J.L.J. and J.D.J., Minor Children; J.J. and T.H. v. D.E.
53A01-1306-AD-285
Adoption. Affirms order dispensing with father’s consent to the adoption of his children and denying grandmother T.H.’s petitions for guardianship and adoption of her grandchildren in favor of D.E. Sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s determination that father’s consent was not required based on his knowing failure to provide care and support for the twins despite an ability to do so. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that grandmother was not entitled to notice of the guardianship proceedings. Affirms it is in the best interest of the twins to remain with the guardian.

Segun Rasaki v. State of Indiana
49A05-1307-CR-330
Criminal. Dismisses Rasaki’s appeal following conviction of Class D felony sexual battery and Class B misdemeanor battery. Concludes, sua sponte, that the appeal is untimely.

State of Indiana v. Jeremy Ripperdan (NFP)
31A01-1305-CR-206
Criminal. Reverses suppression of the results of a search of property where Ripperdan had allegedly previously sold methamphetamine. Remands for further proceedings.

Jonathan "Slade" Taylor and Mark A. Casey v. Eric "Rico" Elmore and Fatheadz, Inc. (NFP)
32A05-1305-PL-257
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for Elmore and Fatheadz on a complaint alleging fraud and other claims.

In the Matter of: R.C. v. K.P. (NFP)
02A03-1308-PO-375
Protective order. Affirms protective order against R.C.

In Re the Adoption of D.E.C.; B.C. v. P.L. (NFP)
29A05-1307-AD-369
Adoption. Affirms finding that father’s consent to stepfather’s adoption of D.E.C. was not necessary and that the adoption was in the child’s best interest.

In Re the Marriage of: Earika Fussner v. Clint Fussner (NFP)
87A01-1306-DR-261
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of wife’s motion for clarification and husband’s motion to dismiss.  

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by 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