ILNews

Opinions July 23, 2012

July 23, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Mark McCleskey, trustee, et al. v. DLF Construction Inc., an Indiana corporation
11-1826
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms finding that the construction company, as employer, had to contribute to the funds for all hours worked by members of the union, not just bargaining unit work. The collective bargaining agreements are clear that DLF is required to make contributions to the pension and health and welfare funds for each hour worked by a covered employee.

Indiana Supreme Court
Robert L. Clark, Jr. and Debra Clark v. Robert L. Clark, Sr.
01S02-1112-CT-690
Civil tort. Reverses judgment in favor of Clark Sr. in Clark Jr.’s suit after his father hit him with his car while trying to give his father directions. Holds that for purposes of the Indiana Gust Statute as to injuries inflicted when a passenger has exited the vehicle and is standing outside of it and directing the driver’s attempt to park, that passenger is not “in or upon” the vehicle and thus is not precluded from brining a negligence action against the driver. Remands for further proceedings. Justices Sullivan and Massa dissent.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Sims v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1203-CR-127
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Edwin D. Calligan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1108-CR-400
Criminal. Grants rehearing and affirms original decision to deny motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Savane Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1106-CR-428
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, but finds the trial court erred in the manner in which it imposed the habitual offender enhancement. Remands for further proceedings.

Rosalio Pedraza v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1111-PC-1076
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Robert Grubbs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1109-PC-606
Post conviction. Affirms denial of motion for reconsideration and motion to correct error.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

ADVERTISEMENT