ILNews

Opinions Feb. 25, 2014

February 25, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
James Kindred, Thomas Kindred, and Sam Kindred v. Betty Townsend and Harmon Crone
60A01-1304-PL-156
Civil plenary. Dismisses interlocutory appeal as untimely. Finds the arguments the Kindreds raised in appealing the denial of their motion to dissolve were based on information that was available when the trial court granted the preliminary injunction six months prior. Still, the COA notes it has ruled only that the Kindreds forfeited their right to an interlocutory appeal by failing to timely file. The Kindreds may yet attack the trial court’s interlocutory orders on appeal from the final judgment.  

John R. Pugsley v. State of Indiana (NFP)  
05A02-1306-CR-517
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of methamphetamine and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Derek A. Griffith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1307-PC-300
Post conviction. Affirms denial of relief from convictions of Class C felony attempted burglary and finding of habitual offender.

Mark A. Petry v. State of Indiana (NFP) 
63A01-1306-CR-279
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct, Class D felony sexual battery and Class D felony criminal confinement.

James R. Willey v. State of Indiana (NFP) 
06A05-1306-PC-268
Post conviction. Affirms in part and reverses in part denial of relief from convictions of felony murder and conspiracy to commit burglary, vacating a 50-year sentence on the latter charge because trial counsel failed to raise the argument that the convictions violated the prohibition against double jeopardy.

In Re the Visitation of L.W., D.W. v. G.W. and C.W. (NFP)
71A03-1308-JM-300
Juvenile. Dismisses as moot father D.W.’s appeal of a grandparent visitation order.

Angelo A. Liali v. Patsy Liali (NFP) 
34A02-1307-DR-640
Affirms order denying Angelo Liali’s motion to modify college support obligation and affirms indirect contempt finding for refusal to pay.

Joshua Batchelor v. State of Indiana (NFP) 
15A01-1305-CR-274
Criminal. Affirms order denying release of cash bond and money seized in a search of Batchelor’s home.

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