ILNews

Opinions June 16, 2010

June 16, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

M.T. v. State of Indiana
49A04-0908-JV-484
Juvenile. Reverses modification of probation and commitment to the Department of Correction. The state presented no evidence of the probation violations it alleged and the state violated M.T.’s due process rights.

Jason G. Ertel v. State of Indiana
29A02-0908-CR-824
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion by admitting evidence obtained after Ertel’s car was stopped because the police officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.

John Dyer, David White, and Maurice Dillender v. James H. Hall and Nu-Plaza Yacht Club

82A01-0910-CV-510
Civil. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Hall on the complaint his boat docks interfere with Dyer, White, and Dillender’s use of the river. There is an issue of fact as to whether or to what extent the landowners have access to the river, and whether the deadmen installed on the landowners’ property are a nuisance or a trespass.

Paternity of R.M.; N.C. v. K.M. (NFP)
02A03-1001-JP-21
Juvenile. Affirms order denying father N.C.’s motion for change of venue from judge pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 76(B).

David Mazhandu v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-0909-CR-890
Criminal. Affirms conviction of resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor.

James D. Boyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A04-1001-CR-30
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting. Reverses sentence and remands for it to be revised to 40 years in prison.

Rocky D. Beavers Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1002-CR-96
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony child molesting and Class B felony incest.

Herman F. Filice v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-CR-1109
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to “remove sexually violent predator status.”

J.M. Alleged to be C.H.I.N.S.; H.M. and D.M. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
20A03-0910-JV-480
Juvenile. Affirms finding that J.M. is a child in need of services.

Michael R. Pollard, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A05-0910-CR-594
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Rickey D. Gosha v. State of Indiana (NFP)

48A02-0910-CR-1006
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order that Gosha serve the remainder of his sentence.

Lorenzo Borders v. City of Elkhart, Ind., et al. (NFP)
20A03-0907-CV-346
Civil. Affirms summary judgment and motions to dismiss Borders’ complaint for false arrest and false imprisonment in favor of the City of Elkhart, et al.

George Cox, et al. v. Honorable Roger D. Davis (NFP)
31A01-0912-CV-571
Civil. Affirms dismissal of complaint filed by Cox and others against Harrison Superior Judge Davis.

Jason Wells v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-377
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting.

James A. Barber v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-0909-CR-916
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of child molestation as Class A felonies, and two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor as Class B felonies.

Larry Andrew Anderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-0911-CR-656
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony possession of a controlled substance and Class D felony possession of a legend drug.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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