ILNews

Opinions Feb. 19, 2014

February 19, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
State of Indiana v. William Coats
49S02-1305-CR-328
Criminal. Remands to the trial court with an order to commit Coats to the Division of Mental Health and Addiction. I.C. 35-36-3-1(b) requires trial courts to commit defendants found not competent to stand trial to the DMHA for competency restoration services.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

David D. Kiely v. Kathryn Starnes-Kiely (NFP)
14A04-1307-DR-372
Domestic relation. Affirms equal division of marital estate.

Tyrone Wilbourn v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1306-CR-262
Criminal. Affirms conviction of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as a Class B felony.

Christena Seifried v. Dukes Health System, LLC, d/b/a Dukes Memorial Hospital (NFP)
49A02-1305-CT-435
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the hospital in Seifried’s action for personal injuries allegedly suffered as a result of her fall in the hospital.

Kenneth Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1306-CR-535
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions to vacate Davis’ Class A misdemeanor battery conviction. Affirms conviction of battery as a Class C felony.

Heriberto M. Andrade v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1307-CR-289
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine weighing three grams or more and two counts of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

James Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1306-CR-292
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felonies possession of cocaine and a firearm, and possession of cocaine; and Class A misdemeanors possession of marijuana and carrying a handgun without being licensed. Remands to correct trial court records.

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