ILNews

Opinions March 19, 2012

March 19, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
Jimmie E. Jones, Jr. v. State of Indiana
29S02-1108-CR-511
Criminal. Adopts Court of Appeals opinion in full, which affirmed the refusal by the trial court to give Jones’ tendered instructions on reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter as lesser-included offenses to the murder charge. The evidence didn’t support a reckless homicide instruction and the charging information for the murder count foreclosed an involuntary manslaughter instruction.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re the Paternity of C.S.: M.R. (Mother) v. R.S. (Father)
53A01-1108-JP-381
Juvenile. Affirms order granting a petition for modification of custody filed by father. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that C.S.’s physical and mental/academic maturation constituted a substantial change warranting modification of custody. The trial court did not misinterpret Indiana Code 31-17-2-8 in the process of drawing conclusions from its findings, nor did it err in relying on the updated custody evaluation.

Robert Hardin v. Carlotta Hardin
18A05-1105-DR-301
Domestic relation. Reverses and remands as to the trial court’s division of Robert Hardin’s pension, including the cost to Carlotta Hardin of the survivor’s benefit. Affirms as to all other issues. The trial court used an incorrect coverture fraction and erred in dividing the pension.

Charles L. Eckard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1108-CR-382
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony battery.

Juan Emerson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1102-PC-95
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Kelly Scott Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1111-PC-651
Post conviction. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw petition for post-conviction relief and denial of that petition.

T.N.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-1105-JV-263
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for committing what would be sexual battery if committed by an adult.

Mark Wiley v. Midwest Poultry Services, LP (NFP)
93A02-1107-EX-593
Agency appeal. The full board of the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana erred in denying Wiley’s claim for the reimbursement of costs associated with his wheelchair because the undisputed evidence reveals his impairment is reduced by having a working motorized wheelchair and the parties’ agreement did not waive this claim. Further, based on a plain reading of the agreement, the board did not err in awarding Wiley reimbursement for the cost of repairing the chair lift added to his pick-up truck. Remands to the full board to enter an amended order consistent with this opinion.

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