ILNews

Opinions June 4, 2013

June 4, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
City of Indianapolis v. Rachael Buschman
49S02-1210-CT-598
Civil tort. Affirmed trial court’s grant of summary judgment in Buschman’s favor and remanded the case for further proceedings. Ruled that Buschman’s inclusion of information about her injuries does not restrict the scope of her claim. Although she stated in her claim she did not suffer any injuries from an auto accident involving an Indianapolis police officer, the amended statute governing the Indiana Tort Claims Act does not require a description of injuries. The court concluded when the Legislature amended the statute, it intended to remove any pre-existing requirement of specificity in regards to personal injuries.   

Indiana Court of Appeals
Cesar Chavez v. State of Indiana
49A02-1211-CR-892
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands conviction of five counts of Class C felony child molestation, holding that the five counts were in violation of the continuing crime doctrine and that Chavez committed two chargeable crimes instead of the five for which a jury convicted him. The Court of Appeals instructed the trial court to vacate three of the five convictions.

Matthew J. Bulliner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1211-CR-472
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony and Class A misdemeanor convictions of resisting law enforcement.

Stephen R. Hollingsworth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
26A04-1210-CR-498
Criminal. Affirms in interlocutory appeal denial of motion for discharge for violation of the speedy trial provision under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C).

Mark Bonds v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1212-CR-974
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Charles D. Gilliam v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1210-CR-432
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony conviction of receiving stolen property.

Jason Ulysses Harmon v. United States Steel Corporation f/k/a USX Corporation (NFP)

93A02-1212-EX-1030
Executive administrative/worker’s compensation. Affirms Worker’s Compensation Board’s denial of benefits.

Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions before IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions before 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