ILNews

Opinions June 7, 2013

June 7, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Supervised Admin. of the Estate of Cora E. Young, deceased; Terry Douthitt, Kelly Douthitt, and Kevin Douthitt v. Theodore R. Young
53A04-1301-EU-36
Estate, unsupervised. Affirms trial court’s finding that the proceeds of a sale of Cora Young’s property should be distributed to her second husband at her death. Since the property was a specific bequest under Young’s will and was sold before her death, it was adeemed by extinction and therefore the proceeds pass to the residuary beneficiary under her will, which is her second husband.

Gayle Fischer v. Michael and Noel Heymann

49A02-1204-PL-340
Civil plenary. Reverses $93,972.18 in damages to Fischer on her breach of contract claim and orders the court to enter a damage award of $117. Holds that the Heymanns committed an anticipatory breach of the purchase agreement on Feb. 10, 2006; that, given the evidence and the trial court’s findings, Fischer’s duty to mitigate arose on Feb. 11, 2006, when she learned of the Heymanns’ breach; and that Fischer failed to act with reasonable diligence to mitigate her damages at her first opportunity, which was no later than Feb. 18, 2006. The trial court acted within its discretion when it limited Fischer’s award for attorney fees and costs, but orders the court to enter an award for those fees commensurate with Fischer’s recovery on the merits and court costs. Judge Bradford dissents.

Jerome K. Jackson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1210-PC-535
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands for findings and conclusions on the failure to present an officer’s testimony regarding the validity of a license plate as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Reverses on issue of attorney’s failure to present evidence on the issue of whether children were present at the school at the time of Jackson’s arrest. If court finds the failure to present the officer’s testimony wasn’t ineffective assistance of counsel, directs Jackson receive a new trial on the issue of a statutory defense if the state so chooses.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: M.R. and L.P. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
38A04-1211-JT-573
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Cody Matthew Fritz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1212-CR-539
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a prior conviction.

James D. Brooks v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A03-1210-CR-454
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class D felony theft.

Larry C. Perry, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A03-1211-CR-456
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony invasion of privacy.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

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