ILNews

Opinions Jan. 25, 2011

January 25, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Adoption of L.C.E.; D.H. v. J.H. and J.D.E.
47A05-1008-AD-474
Adoption. Reverses adoption of L.C.E. by his maternal grandfather J.D.E. The stepfather, D.H., had custody of L.C.E. and his consent is required for the adoption of L.C.E. The trial court erred in granting the grandfather’s petition prior to the expiration of the 30 days provided for objection to be filed and prior to receiving D.H.’s properly filed objection.

Jeffery T. Curry, et al. v. Andrew Whitaker, et al.
49A02-1004-CC-398
Civil collections. Affirms summary judgment for Whitaker and Santa-Cruz Chavez on the Currys’ complaint for invasion of privacy by intrusion, invasion of privacy by false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. There is no genuine issue of material fact and Whitaker and Santa-Cruz Chavez are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Darlene Baca v. RPM, Inc., c/o Patty Brown
79A02-1006-SC-655
Small claim. Reverses order by Tippecanoe Superior Court 4 that Baca, a disabled and indigent small claims litigant, perform four hours of community service to have her claim set for a hearing. The policy is not a duly promulgated local rule and is unenforceable.

Phyllis Hardy, et al. v. Mary Jo Hardy
51A01-1005-PL-248
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of Mary Jo Hardy’s motion for summary judgment and the denial of Phyllis Hardy and other plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their complaint for declaratory judgment/constructive trust over insurance proceeds. A certified copy of the dissolution decree wasn’t received by the appropriate office before the date of Carlos Hardy’s death and the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act preempts the plaintiffs’ state law claims.  

Frank J. Akey, Personal Rep. of the Estate of Wayne Akey v. Parkview Hospital, et al.
02A04-1007-CT-441
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for defendants Parkview Hospital, Dr. McEowen, and Professional Emergency Physicians Inc. in Frank Akey’s complaint for damages following the death of Wayne Akey. The trial court’s exclusion of Dr. Mirro’s expert testimony on causation was an abuse of discretion. Remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.T.; R.T. v. Marion County DCS and Child Advocates (NFP)
49A02-1006-JT-731
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Martel K. Settles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1003-CR-246
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery.

Shelisa Wimbush v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1006-CR-337
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery.

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