ILNews

Opinions March 21, 2011

March 21, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Darryl Harris v. United Water Services, Inc.
93A02-1010-EX-1164
Civil. Reverses the decision by the Full Worker’s Compensation Board affirming the grant of United Water’s motion to dismiss. Harris’ deposition testimony doesn’t support the board’s finding that he admitted that his condition stemmed from a single incident and the board applied the wrong burden of proof. Remands for further proceedings.

Larry Bowyer v. Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources
09A05-0912-CV-740
Civil. Affirms order granting permanent mandatory injunction and damages in favor of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, which said that Bowyer must remove the fill he placed in the lake and restore it to as close to its natural condition as possible. The trial court did not err in its application or construction of Indiana Code Section 14-26-2-6, and the order’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment were not clearly erroneous.

Stephen B. Reeves v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1006-PC-324
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Nicole Cooper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1004-CR-506
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following revocation of probation.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.K. Jr., et al.; A.K. Sr. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
27A02-1009-JT-1004
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Jeremy Knoy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1004-CR-431
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for felony murder.

Christopher Rondeau v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-694
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Bruce E. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1007-CR-435
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony dealing in marijuana.

Shawn Hattery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A03-1002-CR-62
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class D felonies obstruction of justice, theft, criminal confinement, and sexual battery; Class A felonies burglary, attempted criminal deviate conduct, two counts of criminal deviate conduct, and three counts of rape; and Class C felony battery.

Terry Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-PC-747
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Mauricio Carvajal v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A05-1007-CR-463
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea.

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Doris Beard (NFP)
45A04-1009-SC-529
Small claims. Reverses denial of Carnival’s motion to dismiss Beard’s claim.

Evan Sapp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1006-CR-330
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted one transfer and denied 23 for the week ending March 18.
 

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