ILNews

Opinions June 5, 2012

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

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Tax Court and Indiana Supreme Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Kevin C. O'Connell v. State of Indiana
18A02-1109-CR-889
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s decision to refuse O’Connell’s tendered jury instructions that the word “voluntary” be included with each of his charges. Holds that other instructions covered the substance of the tendered instructions.

James Ripps v. State of Indiana
15A01-1109-CR-436
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s revocation of Ripps’ probation, holding that several factors – including Ripps’ age, health and his efforts to comply with terms of his probation – indicate the court abused its discretion in issuing its order.

Bennie Chamberlain v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1108-CR-770
Criminal. Reverses sentences for Class C felony stalking, Class C felony criminal confinement and Class D felony residential entry, holding the crimes were part of a single episode of criminal conduct and the consecutive sentences exceeded the maximum allowable time under Indiana Code. Remands for resentencing, including attachment of habitual offender enhancement.  

Milan D. Zavodny, Trustee of the Milan D. Zavodny Trust v. Evelyn Ann Pavilionis Trust U/W/A, Dated 18 March 1997 (NFP)
75A03-1110-PL-458
Civil plenary. Holds trial court erred in awarding $43,000 in damages to Pavilionis and therefore reverses and remands for a determination of actual damages, if any, and a determination of whether prejudgment interest should be awarded. Affirms trial court’s denial of Zavodny’s request for a continuance.

Performance Matters Associates and Conseco Marketing, LLC v. Patrick A. Fortune (NFP)
29A05-1107-PL-361
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of Fortune.

In the Matter of the Paternity of N.M.E., Minor Child; J.E.E., Father v. J.B., Mother (NFP)
71A03-1112-JP-549
Juvenile. Reverses juvenile court’s order that father’s parenting time with daughter is to be supervised, holding the court made no finding of physical endangerment or emotional impairment. Remands for court to enter findings or remove restrictions on parenting time.

Mark Shepard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1108-CR-415
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class C felony conspiracy to commit robbery and felony murder.
 

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