ILNews

Opinions June 27, 2011

June 27, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Vincent M. Butler, Jr. v. State of Indiana
84A01-1008-CR-414
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Butler’s probation. The record shows that the trial court adequately advised Butler of his right to counsel and that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived that right. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the balance of his four-year previously suspended sentence. Judge Kirsch dissents.

In the Matter of the Trust of Harrison Eiteljorg
49A02-1005-TR-485
Trust. Affirms probate court finding that the trustees failed to distribute a portion of the trust corpus in a timely manner. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding on liability as the trustees knew there was property available in the trust for distribution yet declined to timely distribute it to the beneficiaries. Reverses assessment of damages and attorney fees and remands for a re-evaluation of the compensatory damages and a reduction in attorney fees. Judge Baker dissents.

Gary Ludban, et al. v. Ronald Burtch, et al.
44A05-1007-PL-437
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court ruling regarding the survey of land. The survey the Burtches had conducted was not erroneous as a matter of law, the trial court did not err in determining that the fence between the Ludban and Burtch properties establishes the property line, and the trial court did not err in denying the Ludbans’ adverse possession claim to a strip of land used for access to the lake. The trial court did not err in discrediting the survey the Ludbans had done or in implying that Gary Ludban disturbed the original monumentation between lots 29 and 30. The determination of the property line between the Reeds and the Ludbans based on the line of occupation is supported by the evidence.

Kimberly L. Benedict v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1359
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Paternity of K.B.; J.B. v. J.D. (NFP)
02A04-1008-JP-533
Juvenile. Affirms trial court grant of permission to allow mother to relocate to Tennessee with daughter.

Jerry L. Coleman v. Marla J. Coleman (NFP)
38A05-1008-DR-490
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Jerry Coleman’s motion to correct error after the court awarded custody of his son to ex-wife, Marla Coleman, and twice found Jerry in contempt of court.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted seven transfers and denied 34 for the week ending June 24, 2011.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT