ILNews

Opinions Jan. 19, 2012

January 19, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court
Chrysler Group, LLC v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and T.A., et al.
93S02-1109-EX-565
Agency appeal. Affirms award of benefits to Chrysler employees offered a buyout. By Chrysler’s own words — to Congress and its own employees — Enhanced Voluntary Termination of Employment Program was part of a company-wide effort intended to avert twenty-nine manufacturing plant closures, twenty-two parts depot closures, and 53,000 layoffs. The board’s conclusion on this issue of ultimate fact was reasonable.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Tommy D. Alfrey v. State of Indiana
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2012/january/01191203cjb.pdf
54A01-1104-CR-169
Criminal. Affirms convictions in three separate cause numbers of Class D felony residential entry, theft, escape and residential entry, Class A misdemeanor trespass, and revocation of probation. Intoxication is not a defense and Alfrey’s situation does not fall under the two narrow exceptions outlined in I.C. 35-41-3-5.

Fernando Contreras v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1106-CR-255
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty pleas to Class B felony burglary and Class C felony escape.

Beth E. Myers v. Rising Sun-Ohio County Community School Corporation (NFP)
58A05-1104-CT-193
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for the school corporation on Myers’ complaint asserting she was wrongfully discharged in retaliation for her workers' compensation claim.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.T.; K.A. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, and Lake County CASA (NFP)
45A03-1105-JT-207
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Raymond Benjamin Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1106-CR-327
Criminal. Affirms sentence for convictions of Class C felony criminal recklessness and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Marie Robinson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

67A01-1107-CR-306
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Stacey L. Certain v. State of Indiana (NFP)
91A02-1106-CR-546
Criminal. Reverses sentence for Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life and remands with instructions to resentence Certain to the advisory sentence of four years.

Bart A. Dewald v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1010-CR-541
Criminal.  Affirms sentences for conspiracy to commit aggravated battery, criminal confinement, intimidation, pointing a firearm, and criminal recklessness, and remands with instructions to vacate one conviction of conspiracy to commit aggravated battery and resentence Dewald in accordance with the opinion. Judge Baker concurs in part and dissents in part.

I.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1101-JV-41
Juvenile. Grants rehearing and affirms original decision reversing the juvenile court’s order of restitution. Remanded for a new restitution hearing.

Dominique Guyton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-PC-724
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

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