ILNews

Opinions Jan. 18, 2012

January 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
A.T. v. State of Indiana
49S02-1201-JV-26
Juvenile. Reverses trial court’s dispositional order and remands with instructions to vacate that portion of its order committing A.T. to the Department of Correction until his 18th birthday. Because A.T. does not meet the criteria of Indiana Code 31-37-19-9(b), a determinate commitment under that section may not be imposed.

Rickey D. Whitaker v. Travis M. Becker
02S03-1201-CT-27
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of Whitaker’s personal injury case against Becker following an auto accident. The magistrate judge and trial court judge acted within the range of their discretion in making it clear to counsel that the behavior by Whitaker’s attorney is unacceptable. Justices Sullivan and Rucker dissent.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. v. AMCO Company, et al.
33A01-1103-CT-104
Civil tort. Grants rehearing to clarify the disposition of opinion. While all parties may be parties to the appeal, the reversal of summary judgment only applies to Holiday Hospitality. The other petitioners forfeited the right to appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against them because only Holiday Hospitality appealed the trial court decision.

Corey Fletcher v. State of Indiana
79A02-1009-CR-1096
Criminal. Reverses denial of Fletcher’s motion for discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B). The trial court improperly denied his motion. Judge Friedlander dissents.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Ay.L. and Al.L.; and R.L. and K.L. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1104-JT-448
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Adam Hanna v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1107-EX-667
Agency appeal. Affirms decision by the review board denying Hanna’s unemployment benefits.

Ramezan Hajizadeh v. Jo Hajizadeh a/k/a Jo Owens (NFP)
88A01-1012-DR-678
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution court’s amended order dividing the marital property and denying Ramezan Hajizadeh’s requests for maintenance, enforcement of a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I-864 affidavit of support, and attorney fees.

Steven D. Stocker and Nancy J. Stocker v. Connie L. Schnapf, as Trustee of Trust B Established Under the Thomas M. Crane Primary Trust Agreement Dated November 12, 1992 (NFP)
82A01-1106-MF-244
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms judgment in favor of Schnapf and against the Stockers as to their liability under a promissory note and mortgage.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no 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