ILNews

Opinions March 25, 2014

March 25, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Joanna S. Robinson v. State of Indiana
20S04-1307-CR-471
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of Robinson’s motion to suppress. Agrees with trial court in giving deference to deputy’s testimony that he initiated the traffic stop after observing Robinson drive off the roadway twice even though the video from the deputy’s in-car camera only shows Robinson weaving onto the fog line. Rucker dissents, asserting giving credit to the deputy’s testimony over the video amounts to reweighing evidence.

State of Indiana v. Darrell L. Keck
67S01-1403-CR-179
Criminal. Affirms the trial court’s grant of Keck’s motion to suppress on the grounds the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop. Upholds trial court’s finding that the poor conditions of county roads necessitated Keck driving left-of-center to avoid the potholes.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Marjorie O. Lesley v. Robert T. Lesley
79A02-1305-DR-472
Domestic. Reverses an order granting rehabilitation maintenance for Marjorie O. Lesley, holding that the court lacked authority to re-evaluate a final dissolution order after she later was found to qualify for disability benefits from the Social Security Administration. Remands for support. In a separate concurring opinion, Judge John Baker wrote the court could have reserved judgment on the disability issue by continuing the hearing at which the final order was issued to await SSA’s determination on disability.

Victor Hugo Mesa v. State of Indiana
36A01-1308-MI-362
Miscellaneous/forfeiture. Affirms forfeiture of a vehicle on the state’s summary judgment motion, holding that Mesa did not properly request a summary judgment hearing and that no issue of material fact existed regarding whether the vehicle was seizable under Indiana Code § 34-24-1-1(a)(3).

Jerid T. Bennett v. State of Indiana
59A05-1306-CR-277
Criminal. Vacates a conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine as double jeopardy for a conviction in the same case of Class B felony dealing in cocaine, but otherwise lets stand the dealing conviction as well as convictions of Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Robert Morris Endris v. Jennifer Lynn Endris (NFP)
41A01-1303-DR-130
Domestic relation. Reverses visitation order that stopped visits between Robert Endris and his daughter and modified parenting time with the other children without explanation. Also reverses order that paternal grandmother, who was not a party to the dissolution, host the children during bi-annual visits. Remands to the trial court to enter an order either complying with Parenting Time Guidelines or explaining the deviation when modifying the visitation for the other children. Affirms denial of Endris’ motion to modify child support.

Vernon Robinson v. Estates At Eagle's Pointe (NFP)
52A02-1306-PL-528
Civil plenary. Reverses the trial court’s order to the extent that it awarded the Estates $57,375 but affirms the remainder of the order. Remands for entry of judgment in favor of Estate in the amount of $46,375 plus attorneys fee of $25,000 and costs.

Dennis Knight v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1309-CR-475
Criminal. Affirms conviction of one count of Class B felony robbery.

Richard Antonio Clark v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1308-CR-337
Criminal. Affirms three-year sentence for Class D felony strangulation and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

The Indiana Tax Court did not post any opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not submit any Indiana opinions 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