ILNews

Opinions March 4, 2014

March 4, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Court of Appeals opinions were posted after IL deadline Monday:
Tanya R. Dawson v. State of Indiana, City of Indianapolis, and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (NFP)
49A02-1308-MI-716
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of motion for summary judgment in an action filed by the state, city of Indianapolis and the IMPD for forfeiture of Dawson’s 2000 Chevy Tahoe.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Janice M. Stern (NFP)
82A04-1306-MF-282
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Stern in the instant mortgage foreclosure action. Remands for further proceedings.

Tuesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Stephen W. Robertson, Insurance Commissioner of the State of Indiana, et. al.
49A04-1302-PL-84
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court order upholding an administrative order that Commonwealth take certain actions to cure its violations of the Rate Statute, the Unsafe Business Practices Statute and the Gross Premium Tax Statute. Concludes that substantial evidence supports the IDOI’s determination that Commonwealth violated the statutes and that the cures imposed by the IDOI for Commonwealth’s violations of these statutes are authorized by the Cure Statute.

Jermaine Christopher Scott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1307-CR-344
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Randy L. Madewell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A05-1305-CR-254
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for three counts of Class D felony home improvement fraud and three counts of Class B misdemeanor home improvement fraud.

Marcus Pernell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1307-CR-345
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery and remands with instructions for the trial court to enter a correct abstract of judgment.

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