ILNews

Opinions Feb. 24, 2012

February 24, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
CFS, LLC and Charles Blackwelder v. Bank of America, Successor in Interest to LaSalle Bank Midwest National Association

29A02-1105-MF-436
Mortgage foreclosure.  Affirms trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Bank of America, finding that the bank established no genuine issue of material fact existed about whether a successor bank surviving after a merger could enforce the note and mortgage of the predecessor.

Undray D. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1012-PC-1389
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief in murder case on grounds that trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective.

Sasha Slater v. Ridinger Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Shakamak IGA (NFP)
28A05-1104-CT-207
Civil tort. Reverses and remands slip-and-fall injury case where a store had obtained summary judgment on grounds that the plaintiff didn’t provide evidence as to what caused her fall. Finds the plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact about the floor where the injury occurred and ruled the trial court’s summary judgment ruling was an error.

In Re: Levi Jacob Loucks Testimonial Trust and James M. Loucks, Trustee; Angel M. Lepley v. Levi J. Loucks (NFP)
17A04-1107-TR-386
Trust. Affirms judgment of trial court that denied a woman’s request to access principal trust funds to pay child support and also denied her request for attorney fees incurred while trying to collect the child support.

Jeremy D. Stone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1007-CR-464
Criminal. Affirms a three-year executed sentence for strangulation, finding that defendant-appellant didn’t demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion in failing to mention the man’s guilty plea as a mitigating factor. Nothing is inappropriate about the sentence based on the offender’s character and nature of the crime.
 
Danny W. Ramsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
14A01-1102-PC-84
Post-conviction. Affirms trial court’s partial denial of a post-conviction relief petition regarding an evidentiary hearing request, whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, and whether appellate counsel’s failure to challenge the sentence constituted ineffective assistance.
 
Antoine L. Skinner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1105-CR-514
Criminal. Affirms a probation revocation, finding that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in revoking all four years of a suspended sentence because of the man’s single sale of cocaine to a police informant which the defendant-appellant claimed was “a trivial violation.”
 
T.W.O. f/k/a T.L.W. v. G.A.W. (NFP)
64A03-1106-DR-289
Domestic relations. Affirms trial court’s decision in favor of the father on grounds that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying mother’s request to modify custody, didn’t abuse its discretion in dividing marital property, and didn’t abuse its discretion in declining to modify the mother’s child support obligation to an earlier date.
 
Zachery Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1108-CR-796
Criminal. Affirms one-year jail sentence for two counts of Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury, finding that the nature of the offense and offender’s character didn’t make the sentence inappropriate.

Henry A. Booker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1105-CR-221
 Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in a Schedule II controlled substance, finding the 40-year sentence is appropriate, that the evidence was sufficient and the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in jury instruction regarding the defendant’s defense to the crime.
 

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