ILNews

Opinions March 3, 2014

March 3, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joseph and M. Carmen Wysocki v. Barbara A. and William T. Johnson, both individually and as Trustees of the Barbara A. Johnson Living Trust
45A03-1309-CT-385
Civil tort. Affirms denial of the Wysockis’ request for attorney fees and additional damages under the Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act. The Wysockis were not victims of the criminal offense of fraud because the Johnsons were not charged with that crime in relation to the sale of the house, much less convicted of it in a court of law. In the absence of such a conviction, the CVRA does not apply.

CBR Event Decorators, Inc., Gregory Rankin, Robert Cochrane and John Bales v. Todd M. Gates
49A02-1302-CT-159
Civil tort. Affirms in part and reverses in part. Concludes shareholders Rankin, Cochrane and Bales are not personally liable for the attorney fees on the wrongful stop payment claim as this claim was only pled against CBR. The ex parte order requiring deposit of $1 million with the trial court clerk was not reversible error.

Shearece M. Love v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1308-CR-400
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

In Re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.D. and J.D.: D.H. (Mother) and J.P.D. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

18A02-1307-JT-657
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Suzanne Throgmartin v. Wilson S. Stober and Christopher E. Clark (NFP)
49A02-1307-CT-656
Civil tort. Reverses order granting Stober’s and Clark’s motion for summary judgment and denial of Throgmartin’s motion to correct error pertaining to the summary judgment entered on her legal malpractice claim.

Cornell Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1308-CR-321
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance and Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.C., Minor Child, and his Father, M.C., M.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

49A02-1308-JT-671
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Timothy J. Tkachik v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1308-CR-417
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class A felony neglect of a dependent.

Dawn Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1308-CR-711
Criminal. Affirms convictions of 11 counts of Class D felony counterfeiting.

The Indiana Supreme Court and 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