ILNews

Opinions July 13, 2012

July 13, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
John W. Schoettmer and Karen Schoettmer v. Jolene C. Wright and South Central Community Action Program, Inc.
49A04-1108-CT-406
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Wright and South Central Community Action Program Inc., finding that the plaintiffs did not timely file notice as governed by the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

Robert Hatcher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1111-CR-1075
Criminal. Reverses and remands trial court revocation of probation, holding that the court could not conclude that Hatcher knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.
 
Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company as Subrogee of Plymouth Wesleyan Church v. Michiana Contracting, Inc., McGrath Refrigeration, Inc., John D. McGrath, Joseph A. Dzierla and Assoc., Inc., et al.
50A03-1111-CT-518
Civil tort. Reverses and remands summary judgment for Michiana, et al., holding that damage to a church addition’s gym floor that was destroyed when a sprinkler froze and burst is not subject to terms of a contact’s waiver of subrogation because the church, not the contractors, performed the work.
 
Michael J. Gosnell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1110-CR-951
Criminal. Affirms trial court sentence after guilty plea on a charge of conspiracy to commit robbery while armed with a deadly weapon.

Swammi, Inc., f/k/a Swami, Inc. v. Shambaugh, Kast, Beck, Williams, LLP and John S. Bloom (NFP)
02A01-1109-PL-417
Civil plenary. Affirms jury verdict that defendants were not liable for legal malpractice.

Alpha Holder, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1111-CR-516
Criminal. Affirms trial court sentence of nine years executed for convictions of Class C felony fraud on a financial institution and being a habitual offender.

Corey Cole v. State of Indiana
49A02-1111-CR-1019
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction of Class B felony rape, holding the trial court did not commit reversible error when it sustained the state’s objection to Cole’s attempt to refresh the victim’s memory with the notes from a nurse, and that the trial court did not commit fundamental error when it allowed hearsay statements.
 
Donald Humphrey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A04-1111-CR-607
Criminal. Affirms trial court convictions of Class C felony intimidation and Class D felony intimidation.

Devonte Rogers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1111-CR-1015
Criminal. Affirms trial court convictions of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and two counts of Class D felony criminal confinement.
 
Nancy J. Ferguson and Nyla R. Hamilton v. Natalie A. Watkins (NFP)
28A01-1201-PL-7
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to set aside a deed in favor of Watkins.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of B.M. and A.M. (Minor Children) and J.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1112-JT-1189
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights.

 

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