ILNews

Opinions Feb. 20, 2013

February 20, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Columbus Regional Hospital v. Federal Emergency Management Agency
12-2007
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of FEMA on the hospital’s lawsuit seeking $20 more in federal aid following a flood in 2006. Holds the District Court is the proper venue for the hospital’s lawsuit. Rejects the hospital’s claims that it is entitled to the cost of new equipment instead of cost less depreciation and that FEMA should not have deducted from the aid the $25 million it received from insurance.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Fredrick Allen Laux v. State of Indiana
27A04-1205-PC-269
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Laux, who received a sentence of life without parole for killing his wife, failed to show he received ineffective assistance of his trial or appellate counsel.

Ralph Pipkin v. State of Indiana
49A02-1206-CR-447
Criminal. Dismisses Pipkin’s motion to dismiss the charge of Class D felony failure to register. Finds the appeals court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Riddell National Bank

61A01-1204-PL-159
Civil plenary.  Affirms denial of State Farm’s motion to dismiss a suit brought by Riddell after State Farm denied coverage. Concludes the unambiguous contract and statutory language void the one-year limitation period in the parties’ contract and, pursuant to the policy’s conformity to state law provision, the 10-year statute of limitations provided by Indiana Code 34-11-2-11 applies and Riddell’s claim was timely.

In Re: The Matter of: David Woodward Cook v. Beth Ann Cook

49A04-1207-PO-370
Protective order. Reverses denial of David Cook’s motion to correct error and remands for a hearing on the merits of his motion. Cook challenged an order for protection and requested the deletion of his name and information from the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee website and law enforcement databases.

In the Matter of: Am.K., A Child In Need of Services and A.M. v. Marion County Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc.

49A02-1207-JC-533
Juvenile. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands for additional proceedings. The mother was adequately notified of DCS’s recommended plan of participation and she acquiesced to the trial court’s authority to enter a parental participation order even if DCS failed to file a parental participation petition. But DCS failed to present sufficient evident to overcome the mother’s liberty interest in deciding her own treatment when she objected to the order and presented evidence of her concerns.

Efren Radillo Diaz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1209-PC-458
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.  

Charles James Popp v. State of Indiana (NFP)

82A01-1205-CR-197
Criminal. Affirms convictions of sexual misconduct with a minor as a Class C felony, nine counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Class A misdemeanor intimidation.

Jeannie A. Dickman v. State of Indiana (NFP)

82A01-1205-CR-202
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor conversion.

Bradley J. Oskey v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and CL Schust Company, Inc. (NFP)

93A02-1203-EX-272
Agency action. Affirms denial of Oskey’s claim for unemployment compensation benefits.

Kathy J. Ragla v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Wendy's of Fort Wayne, Inc. (NFP)
93A02-1207-EX-550
Agency action. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

Jason A. Mejia v. State of Indiana (NFP)

20A03-1208-CR-346
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony failure to return to lawful detention.

Tami and Dennis Lockard v. Lawrence T. Newman (NFP)

49A05-1204-CC-202
Civil collection. Affirms judgment against the Lockards in Lawrence Newman’s suit for unpaid legal fees, but remands for explanation or recalculation of the prejudgment interest component.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

ADVERTISEMENT