ILNews

Opinions Feb. 26, 2014

February 26, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Robin Harper v. State of Indiana
49A04-1305-CR-222
Criminal. Reverses Harper’s Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement conviction. Officers Gillespie and Hartman unlawfully entered Harper’s residence, therefore, the officers were not engaged in the lawful execution of their duties at the time they arrested Harper and then attempted to remove her wedding ring in preparation for booking.

Chad E. Hucker v. State of Indiana
35A02-1307-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanors operating a vehicle while intoxicated and operating a vehicle with a Schedule I or II controlled substance. Finds Indiana Code 9-30-5-1(c), which proscribes the operation of a vehicle with a Schedule I or II controlled substance, does not violate Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution.

Robert D. Stephens, Ryan Moe, Thomas Theohary, and Law Enforcement Technologies, Inc. v. Brian A. Costa and Amy Costa (NFP)
71A04-1305-CT-242
Civil tort. Affirms judgment personally against Stephens for Brian Costa’s injury. Reverses denial of Theohary’s motion for relief of judgment as the trial court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over him. Remands for further proceedings as to Theohary because he has sufficient minimum contacts with Indiana.

Jacquelyn Webster Green, as personal representative of the estate of Mary A. Webster, deceased v. Housing Authority of the City of Gary, Indiana, et al. (NFP)
45A04-1307-CT-344
Civil tort. Affirms grant of motion to dismiss in favor of the Gary Housing Authority and other defendants.

Rita Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1305-CR-454
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and finding Thompson is a habitual offender.

Dennis Powers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
61A04-1307-CR-356
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: L.C., Minor Child, R.C., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1307-JT-297
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

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. 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