ILNews

Opinions Feb. 5, 2014

February 5, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Kendale L. Adams, et al. v City of Indianapolis
12-1874
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. In a consolidated appeal, affirms entry of summary judgment for the city on the officers’ disparate-treatment claims because the plaintiffs had not produced any evidence that using the test results to make promotions was a pretext for discrimination. Affirms dismissal of new claims brought as barred by res judicata because the same eligibility list generated by the testing process was at issue in the first case.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of T.S., C.S., and I.S.: S.R. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A04-1307-JT-354
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

The Board of Commissioners of the County of Jefferson v. Teton Corporation, Innovative Roofing Solutions, Inc., Gutapfel Roofing, Inc. and Daniel L. Gutapfel
72A04-1302-CT-55
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the Teton Corp. and other appellees. Holds that, under the terms of the American Institute of Architects Contract the Board of Commissioners of Jefferson County entered into with Teton, Jefferson County’s claims for damages against the appellees are barred. Judge Brown dissents.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

H.H. v. A.A.
03A01-1308-DR-354
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of mother’s request to relocate with the child to Hawaii. She has shown a good faith and legitimate reason for proposing the relocation, but the trial court did not err when determining it was not in the child’s best interests.
 
Everett Sweet v. State of Indiana
35A02-1305-PC-451
Post conviction. Grants the state’s petition for rehearing, vacates prior opinion and substitutes the prior opinion with this opinion on rehearing. The original decision mistakenly relied on Norris v. State instead of Helton v. State. Helton, like Sweet’s case, involved a petition filed pursuant to Indiana Post Conviction Rule 1(a)(1).

Timothy Ladana Hazelwood v. State of Indiana
49A04-1305-MI-239
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of Hazelwood’s petition to rescind the lifetime suspension of his driving privileges. I.C. 9-30-10-14 and 9-30-10-15 are not unconstitutional as applied to him and driving is a privilege not a right. The suspension of his driving privileges is not punitive.

Steven Winters v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-630
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

Christopher King v. Karen Patrick (NFP)
49A02-1305-PL-461
Civil plenary. Affirms King’s conversion conviction and the calculation of damages.

Alexander Trueblood v. State of Indiana, County of Marion, City of Indianapolis (NFP)
49A02-1210-OV-868
Ordinance violation. Affirms speeding infraction.

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