ILNews

Opinions June 9, 2014

July 9, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC, City of Indianapolis, Department of Waterworks, and City of Indianapolis v. National Trust Insurance Company and FCCI Insurance Company a/s/o Ultra Steak, Inc., et al.
49S04-1301-PL-8
Civil plenary. Grants petition for rehearing on the issue of whether the insurers are third-party beneficiaries to the management agreement between Veolia and the city of Indianapolis. As to all issues not expressly addressed in the principal opinion, the Court of Appeals is summarily affirmed.

Indiana Court of Appeals
George Moss v. State of Indiana
49A02-1311-CR-961
Criminal. Affirms convictions of burglary, two counts of robbery, criminal confinement and carrying a handgun without a license. The trial court did not err in refusing to reopen the case to admit a transcript of a statement Moss intended to use to prove his duress defense. Affirms 40-year sentence.

John Lane-El v. Michael Spears, in his official capacity of Chief of Police, and the Indianapolis Police Department
49A05-1306-PL-289
Civil plenary. Affirms in part and reverses in part summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Lane-El’s request for public records with the IPD. The trial court erred in determining that the Indiana Tort Claims Act barred suit against Spears, but he is not a proper party to the suit. It also erred in determining the IPD was not a suable entity under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act and therefore not a proper party for the suit. The trial court did not commit clear error in denying Lane-El’s motion for in camera review.

David J. Markey v. Estate of Frances S. Markey, Deceased; Stephen L. Routson, Personal Representative under the Last Will and Testament of Frances S. Markey, Deceased; Stephen L. Routson, et al.
89A05-1402-ES-62
Estate.  Affirms summary judgment in favor of the estate regarding David Markey’s claim that Frances Markey had violated a contract with his father to make mutual wills. Finds that a three-month period of limitation applies to Markey’s action and that there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Salvino Verta, et al. v. Salvino Pucci
45A03-1309-PL-387
Civil plenary. Reverses the trial court’s order denying Verta’s combined motion to reconsider/motion to correct error/motion for relief from judgment, in which he challenged the court order that required him to pay $11,400 in damages to Pucci. Remands for the trial court for a hearing to further determine what, if any, monetary damages should be awarded given the chronological case summary’s lack of an entry to indicate that the clerk had sent notice to Verta of a January 2013 order.

William M. Belcher v. Catherine Kroczek, D.D.S.
45A03-1311-CT-436
Civil tort. Reverses denial of Belcher’s motion to transfer venue of Kroczek’s complaint from Lake County to Marion County, where he lives. Kroczek’s alleged injury to her reputation, privacy and identity are not transferrable, so they are not considered chattels under Indiana Trial Rule 75(A)(2).

Darwin Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1311-CR-981
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class A misdemeanors possession of marijuana and resisting law enforcement.

Marion County Health Department v. Edward Hill (NFP)
93A02-1402-EX-69
Agency action. Affirms the decision by the full Worker’s Compensation Board to award Hill employee compensation and benefits related to his unauthorized medical care.

Jerry D. White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1306-PC-238
Post conviction. On rehearing, discusses ineffective assistance of counsel claim and affirms previous decision in all respects.

Louis Timothy Whyde v. Black Diamond Construction, LLC (NFP)
02A04-1402-CT-64
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Black Diamond Construction on Whyde’s lawsuit alleging negligence.

Keith R. Chaney v. Laura C. Chaney (NFP)
84A04-1312-DR-648
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Keith Chaney’s motion for relief from judgment.

Richard Burrington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1401-CR-40
Criminal. Dismisses the pro se appeal of the revocation of probation.

Derrek T. Berryhill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A04-1310-CR-527
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and Class B felony aiding, inducing or causing the commission of a robbery.

Victor Glenn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-PC-774
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

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