ILNews

Opinions July 5, 2012

July 5, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions prior to IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Nipponkoa Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Atlas Van Lines Inc.
3:09-CV-168
Civil plenary/contract. Reverses the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana’s summary judgment for defendant and remands for further proceedings, finding summary judgment inappropriate pending further determination of the relationship between plaintiffs, defendant and ancillary parties involved in a shipping loss.   
    
Indiana Court of Appeals

Andrew Joseph Wortkoetter v. Amy Jean Wortkoetter
30A01-1111-DR-548
Domestic relations. Affirms trial court division of property in a divorce proceeding, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in equally dividing the husband’s individual retirement account. The trial court is instructed to reduce the judgment from $12,664 to $8,147, reflecting the equal division of both parties’ assets.

Brenda Stutz v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of at least 0.15 percent and remands with instructions to vacate a lesser-included conviction for Class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated, holding that the two charges should be merged.
49A02-1110-CR-960
 
In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.L.W., and K.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A04-1111-JT-684
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms trial court’s termination of parental rights.
 
Mandy Little v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court sentence following a plea of guilty to Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
48A04-1110-CR-592
 
Logan Wetzel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms bench trial conviction for Class C felony battery and Class D felony criminal confinement.
49A05-1111-CR-612

State of Indiana v. Donna Stiltz (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses modification of sentence and remands to the trial court with instructions to reinstate defendant’s sentence in accordance with a plea agreement.
66A03-1202-CR-75
 
William Joseph VanHorn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal/post-conviction relief. Affirms post-conviction court’s summary disposition.   
18A02-1109-PC-837

George Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal/post-conviction relief. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of amended petition for post-conviction relief.
49A02-1104-PC-419
 
David L. Lacey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class C felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated while privileges are forfeited for life.
27A02-1109-CR-846
 
S.C. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and M., Inc. (NFP)
Executive administration/unemployment. Reverses review board’s denial of unemployment compensation.
93A02-1202-EX-69
 
In the Matter of C.R. v. State of Indiana
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of delinquency for committing what would constitute Class B felony burglary if committed by an adult.
82A04-1110-JV-595


 

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