ILNews

Opinions March 27, 2014

March 27, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana
18S02-1304-CR-297
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B misdemeanor failure to report a student’s rape allegation to DCS or local law enforcement based on the statute that requires a school to report instances of child abuse. The reporting requirement is not unconstitutionally vague and there is sufficient evidence to sustain Smith’s conviction. Justices Rucker and Chief Justice Dickson dissent in a separate opinion.

Front Row Motors, LLC and Jerramy Johnson v. Scott Jones
49S02-1311-PL-758
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of Front Row Motors’ motion to set aside default judgment. The trial court lacked jurisdiction over the dealership at the time the default was entered.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Douglas J. Allison v. Heather Pepkowski
64A05-1311-PO-554
Protective order. Dismisses appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the court’s extension granted a temporary protection order, which is not appealable as of right, Allison was required to seek a discretionary interlocutory appeal, which he did not do.

Bobby Wine v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A05-1307-CR-382
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in a Schedule I, II or III controlled substance.

In the Matter of the Adoption of L.T.: J.M. and S.M. v. C.T. (NFP)
49A05-1310-AD-493
Adoption. Affirms order by Marion Superior Court, Probate Division, terminating the guardianship of L.T. by his maternal grandparents on grounds that Hamilton Superior Court 1 lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over L.T.’s guardianship. Remands for further proceedings, including that the parties immediately place L.T. in her father’s custody.

Ty C. Wilkerson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1307-CR-609
Criminal. Affirms conviction and eight-year sentence for Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury.

Mardel Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1309-CR-377
Criminal. Affirms grant of state’s motion to join charges under two separate cause numbers for trial.

Austin M. Scholl v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1309-CR-801
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and Class D felony sexual battery.

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