ILNews

Opinions Jan. 20, 2012

January 20, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court
Indiana Dept. of Insurance, Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Robin Everhart, Personal Rep. of the Estate of James K. Everhart, Jr.
84S01-1105-CV-282
Civil. Affirms award of statutory maximum of $1 million in excess damages from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund to Robin Everhart. Does not see any grounds on which to reduce the trial court’s award of $1 million in excess damages, so deciding whether to extend or halt Cahoon’s advance would seem unnecessary at best. The fund was not entitled to a set-off.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jose Castillo-Aguilar v. State of Indiana
20A04-1003-CR-195
Criminal. Reverses denial of Castillo-Aguilar’s motion to suppress his answers on the information sheet he completed at the police station. He was subjected to “interrogation” when he was asked to fill out the information sheet, so he should have been given a Miranda warning.   

Apex 1 Processing, Inc. v. Akeala Edwards, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated
49A05-1103-PL-85
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Apex 1’s motion to compel arbitration of Edwards’ claim. As the designation of the arbitrator was integral to the arbitration provision, the trial court correctly determined that the agreement was impossible to perform and thus void.

K.F. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1103-JV-290
Juvenile. Affirms finding that K.F. committed acts that would be burglary and theft if committed by an adult based on sufficient evidence. Reverses finding that she committed what would be carrying a handgun without a license if committed by an adult because of insufficient evidence. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence K.F.’s statement made to her mother, but it did err by allowing a police officer to testify as to the mother’s hearsay statements. The admission of that testimony was harmless error. Remands for the juvenile court to correct the dispositional order and CCS entry to accurately reflect the true findings entered by the court.

Louis L. Blacknell, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1106-CR-690
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to felony murder.

Opie W. Glass v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A05-1107-PC-373
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Dustin Tumbleson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1107-CR-613
Criminal. Reverses sentence following guilty plea to Class A misdemeanor battery and remands with instructions.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of R.C. & S.C.; R.C. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
47A05-1104-JT-232
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Larry Hellyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1107-CR-396
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Nicholas A. Meade v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A05-1106-CR-311
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following determination Meade violated his probation.

Mikeia Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-267
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion.

Leonard T. Marshall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1103-CR-103
Criminal. Affirms convictions of rape, criminal confinement, intimidation, strangulation, residential entry, resisting law enforcement and false informing.

Patricia Mowery and Harold R. Mowery, Jr. v. Arron L. Hofmeister, Individually and as Employee/Agent of Marathon Petroleum Co., LP, and Marathon Petroleum Co., LP (NFP)
49A05-1103-CT-142
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of Hofmeister in the Mowerys’ action for damages from a collision.

In Re: The Marriage of Cindy B. Neal and George Neal, Jr.; Cindy B. Neal v. George Neal, Jr. (NFP)
70A01-1104-DR-183
Domestic relation. Affirms award of certain personal property to George Neal, the denial of cleanup costs and attorney fees, and the award of certain bank accounts to Cindy Neal.

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