ILNews

Opinions Feb. 22, 2013

February 22, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Northeastern Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. Wabash Valley Power Association

12-2037
Vacates preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Indiana, and remands the case to the district court so it may remand it to state court. Found the federal court does not have jurisdiction because the key questions of whether the contract was valid and whether the contract was breached are not questions of federal law.

Indiana Supreme Court
K.W. v. State of Indiana
49S02-1301-JV-20
Juvenile. Affirms Court of Appeals reversal of trial court ruling designating K.W. a delinquent for resisting law enforcement, and orders the delinquency adjudication vacated. Justices held that evidence was insufficient that K.W. acted “forcibly” to resist a school resource officer when he pulled away as the officer was attempting to handcuff him.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Clematine Hollingsworth v. State of Indiana
49A02-1207-CR-617
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, holding that an amendment to the statute could not be retroactively applied.

Nathan Carl Gilbert v. State of Indiana
10A05-1204-CR-220
Criminal. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remands for resentencing of a Kentucky inmate on four counts of burglary, holding he was denied due process at his sentencing hearing when he wasn’t allowed sufficient time to prepare or properly examine his pre-sentence investigation report. The court held that the “anti-shuffling” provision of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers was not violated when Gilbert was returned to Kentucky before his sentencing hearing could be held in Indiana because the proceeding did not constitute a trial as defined under that provision.

Joshua King v. State of Indiana

49A02-1204-CR-351
Criminal. Affirms King’s convictions for Class C felony battery, Class A misdemeanor battery, and Class D felony strangulation and remands for correction of the Abstract of Judgment which incorrectly lists King’s second battery conviction as a Class C felony. Ruled the court did not violate King’s rights under the Confrontation Clause when it admitted testimony given by a police officer based on statements from the victim. Also found the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted recordings of calls of King discussing the crime from jail.

John Kennendy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-450
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Shawn W. Nicosin v. William J. Mesaeh and Loretta D. Mesaeh (NFP)

11A01-1207-MI-308
Miscellaneous/grandparent visitation. Reverses and remands the trial court’s grant of visitation of G.N. with her maternal grandparents, holding that the court erred by deviating from the requirements established in In re Guardianship of A.L.C., 902 N.E.2d 343, 356 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

Kelvin Hampton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A04-1209-CR-483
Criminal. Reverses and remands a denial of request for return of $146 in $1 bills and a photograph seized during a search of his residence, holding there was no indication the state instigated civil forfeiture proceedings.

Kevin Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1205-PC-264
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief on convictions of Class A felony rape and criminal deviate conduct, Class B felony criminal confinement and Class C felony sexual battery.

Pablo C. Gallo v. Sandra Moira Hyland (NFP)
79A02-1207-DR-624
Domestic relations. Reverses and remands the trial court’s distribution of marital property order with instructions that the court follow the statutory presumption of equal distribution of property or set forth its rationale for deviating from it.

The Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions prior to 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