ILNews

Opinions Feb. 6, 2013

February 6, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Walter E. Smith, Jr. v. State of Indiana
84A04-1112-CR-637
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to use Smith’s tendered instruction because the substance of that instruction was covered by instructions given by the court nor in refusing to discharge Smith pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B). The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in admitting at trial the cocaine evidence seized pursuant to a valid search warrant.

Pekin Insurance Company v. Jose and Carol Hanquier and Joseph Hall

55A04-1208-CT-401
Civil tort. Reverses Pekin Insurance Co.’s motion to correct error. The trial court erred when it failed to enforce the arbitration provision of the Pekin policy as required by Indiana Code 34-57-2-3(a). Remands with instructions.

James Newman v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Gagan LLC (NFP)
93A02-1206-EX-466
Agency action. Affirms denial of claim for unemployment benefits.

Joshua D. Preston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A04-1206-CR-291
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies neglect of a dependent and battery.

Roman Lawson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1205-CR-235
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.T., and A.M. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
49A05-1206-JT-285
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jason Tye Myers v. Stason L. Wiete, Unknown Party, and W. Lafayette Police Department (NFP)

79A04-1206-CT-323
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for defendants on Myers’ action for malicious prosecution.

Amber D. Courtney v. State of Indiana (NFP)

56A03-1206-CR-282
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony possession of narcotic drug because it occurred within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of C.D., and A.D., minor children, and S.D., the mother: S.D. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, and Lake County C.A.S.A. (NFP)
45A03-1205-JT-242
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Shaun L. Steele v. Correctional Industrial Facility (NFP)
48A04-1207-SC-383
Small claim. Affirms decision to set aside default judgment entered against Correctional Industrial Facility.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.D., J.D., J.D.,L.D., and La.D., (Minor Children), and J.D. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
82A05-1206-JT-388
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jarrell Marcell Ballard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1206-CR-319
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony robbery, Class A felony burglary, Class B felony robbery, Class C felony battery and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Shannon N. Maiden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A04-1206-CR-330
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to dealing in a schedule I controlled substance as a Class A felony because the offense occurred within 1,000 feet of a school.

David Edmonds v. Menards, Inc. (NFP)
93A02-1209-EX-712
Agency action. Affirms Worker’s Compensation Board’s determination that Edmonds suffers a 10 percent permanent partial impairment rating with regard to his spinal injuries, and reverses the board’s determination relating to Edmonds’ right shoulder injury. Remands to the board for a determination of whether Edmonds suffers permanent impairment with respect to his shoulder injury.

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