ILNews

Opinions May 17, 2013

May 17, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
State of Indiana ex rel. Glenn D. Commons, et al. v. The Hon. John R. Pera, et al.
45S00-1303-OR-209
Original action/judiciary. Grants in part and denies in part relief sought by relators, Lake County magistrates, who sought to prevent civil division Judge Nicholas Schiralli from transferring to the juvenile bench. The court held that Schiralli, who had not been appointed to the bench through merit selection, may not transfer without first being appointed through merit selection. The court denied the magistrates’ request that no judicial transfers be allowed without merit selection. The court denied Lake County judges’ assertion that the Lake County merit selection statute in question, I.C. 33-33-45-21(e), is unconstitutional.

Kirk B. Lynch v. State of Indiana
40S05-1301-CR-23
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentence of 40 years with five years suspended for attempted child molesting, a Class A felony. Finds the sentence was not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) because it exceeded the advisory sentence by 10 years.

Calvin Merida v. State of Indiana
69S01-1301-CR-24
Criminal. Affirms trial court imposition of consecutive advisory sentences for an aggregate term of 60 years for two counts of child molesting as Class A felonies. Vacated the Indiana Court of Appeal’s decision to revise the sentences under Appellate Rule 7(B), holding the sentences imposed were not inappropriate.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ladonna A. Reck, As Personal Rep. of the Estate of Evelyn L. Holmes v. Harry Clifton Knight, M.D., Mona Siddiqui Saifullah, M.D., Community Health Network, Inc., et al. (NFP)
49A05-1208-CT-428
Civil tort/medical malpractice. Affirms denial of motion to correct error filed following dismissal of the proposed complaint after a statutorily imposed deadline passed.

Robert V. Allen v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A03-1209-CR-408
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Rodney D. Mosby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1209-CR-469
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
 
The Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to 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