ILNews

Opinions July 19, 2012

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

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

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Bobby A. Harlan v. State of Indiana
84A01-1110-CR-474
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed for two convictions of Class B felony child molesting and order that Harlan register as a sexually violent predator. The order requiring Harlan register as a SVP does not violate the ex post facto clause of the Indiana Constitution, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the course of identifying aggravating and mitigating factors at sentencing, and his sentence is reasonable.

David Daniel Johnson, Jr., by Next Friend, Indiana Dept. of Child Services v. The Marion County Coroner's Office and City of Indianapolis
49A02-1111-CT-1070
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for the coroner’s office on the issue of immunity to lawsuit under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. The Coroner’s office conduct in following its own rules does not fall within the definition of enforcement for purposes of immunity
under ITCA. Affirms summary judgment for the government defendants on D.J.’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The evidence designated establishes that D.J. was not sufficiently and directly involved in the removal of his mother’s remains. Finds there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the appellees’ conduct is so outrageous that it satisfies the reckless element of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Remands for further proceedings.

In Re the Marriage of Mary Lynn Manning and Ronald D. Manning, II; Ronald D. Manning, II v. Mary Lynn Manning (NFP)
86A04-1112-DR-669
Domestic relation. Affirms finding Ronald Manning in contempt for failing to reimburse Mary Lynn Manning for certain orthodontia expenses incurred by their child and affirms the order to produce certain tax returns.

Eric D. Smith v. D. Patton, Scott Fitch, Larry Bynum, and Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (NFP)
33A05-1109-PL-572
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of motion for relief from judgment in favor of the correctional officials and Correction Medical Services Inc.

In the Matter of the Paternity of: J.G.; R.W. v. D.G. (NFP)
49A05-1109-JP-537
Juvenile paternity. Affirms modification of father’s parenting time and order that R.W. pay a portion of father’s attorney fees.

Antwane Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1112-PC-1173
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 

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