ILNews

Opinions July 2, 2013

July 2, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Tequita Ramsey v. Lightning Corporation
49A02-1209-CC-705
Civil Collection. Affirms the trial court’s judgment in decertifying the class. In this case of first impression, the COA noted it could find no logical reason to hold that a trial court may never revoke or rescind an order certifying a class. To do so would mean that once a class action is certified, the class could not be later decertified even if facts and evidence discovered afterward suggests the class should not have been certified in the first place.

Frederick L. King v. State of Indiana
02A03-1212-CR-515
Criminal. Affirms the trial court’s judgment in sentencing Frederick King to 10 years with six years suspended to probation for robbery as a Class B felony. In a per curiam decision, the COA found the sentence was not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B).

Fireworks West International, et al. v. David Prim, et al. (NFP)
49A04-1211-CT-582
Civil tort. Affirms denial of summary judgment in favor of David Prim, et al.

Iris Newt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1211-CR-503
Criminal. Affirms jury conviction of Class D felony theft and entrance of judgment and sentence as Class A misdemeanor theft.

Charles Hall v. State of Indiana (NFP)

75A03-1107-PC-331
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief for a conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Steven C. Cupery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1212-CR-547
Criminal. Affirms two-year sentence for conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine pursuant to an agreement that dismissed an unrelated criminal case.

Darryl Crenshaw and Krisean Porter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-CR-859
Criminal. Affirms denial of petitions for restricted disclosure of arrest records on dismissed charges.

Maria Torres v. Lovisa Enders (NFP)

49A02-1302-CT-122
Reverses and remands trial court order dismissing Maria Torres’ negligence claim against Lovisa Enders, holding that the trial court erred and should have granted summary judgment in favor of Torres on the issue of whether the complaint was timely brought. The court orders the complaint reinstated.

Fred L. Froeschke and Judith A. Froeschke v. City of Vincennes (NFP)

42A04-1301-PL-29
Civil plenary. Affirms order granting summary judgment in favor of the city of Vincennes.

Dwight A. Washington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1211-CR-559
Criminal. Affirms convictions of multiple counts of child molestation.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to 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