ILNews

Opinions March 15, 2011

March 15, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Debra L. Walker v. David M. Pullen
64S05-1101-CT-6
Civil tort. Reverses grant of Pullen’s motion to have a new trial and remands for the trial court to reinstate the original jury verdict of $10,070. The trial court judge only made general findings and not special findings as required by Indiana Trial Rule 59(J). Justice Dickson concurs in result.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Grange Mutual Casualty, et al. v. West Bend Mutual Ins., et al.
29A02-1008-PL-965
Civil plenary. Affirms in part and reverses in part summary judgment granted to West Bend Mutual. Finds that both policies were triggered – West Bend’s was triggered by the original fracturing of the storm drain pipe which resulted in immediate damage to the pipe and the subsequent flooding. Grange’s was triggered by the flood damage that occurred during its policy period. Remands for the trial court to apportion damages accordingly. Judge May dissents.

Jason W. Hall v. State of Indiana
25A05-1008-CR-534
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony burglary. Hall didn’t establish an abuse of the trial court’s sentencing discretion or that his sentence is inappropriate. He also wasn’t denied credit time to which he was entitled.

Lovetha Smitherman v. Kroger Limited Partnership I, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1008-PL-880
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of partial summary judgment to Kroger upon Smitherman’s claim for negligent hiring and retention.

Susan Ricketts v. Subaru of Indiana Automotive (NFP)
93A02-1008-EX-1030
Civil. Affirms order of the Worker’s Compensation Board on Ricketts’ claim for disability and medical benefits arising from a work related accident.

L.M. v. B.S., et al. (NFP)
71A03-1010-MI-514
Miscellaneous. Affirms order denying grandmother L.M.’s verified petition for grandparent visitation.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.H.; R.H. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
36A01-1008-JT-418
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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