ILNews

Opinions May 19, 2011

May 19, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline May 18:

Cassie E. Pfenning v. Joseph Lineman, et al.
27S02-1006-CV-331
Civil. On transfer, affirms summary judgment in favor of the golfer, Joseph E. Lineman, and the Marion Elks Country Club Lodge #195. Reverses summary judgment granted to Whitey's 31 Club, Inc. and to the estate of the grandfather, Jerry A. Jones. Holds that the grandfather was responsible for exercising reasonable care in the supervision of the plaintiff, who was injured when she was left unsupervised on a golf cart. States that undisputed facts shown in the materials designated on summary judgment fail to conclusively establish a lack of duty on the part of Whitey's or the absence of a breach of duty or proximate cause. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
James S. Tracy v. Steve Morell, et al.
59A01-1009-PL-488
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s ruling that James Tracy failed to meet his burden of proof on his fraud claim in the sale of a tractor. Reverses court’s ruling that Tracy owed a balance on the promissory note, stating the contract for sale of the tractor is because there was a mutual mistake of fact between the parties and the contract violates public policy. Holds that Tracy is entitled to the contract for sale of the tractor and to a money judgment in the amount he has paid on the note together with interest.

Tameka Caldwell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-751
Criminal. Affirms sentences for two counts of Class C felony forgery, one count of Class D felony perjury, and two counts of Class D felony auto theft.

Mark Kramer, et al. v. Kramer Furniture and Cabinet Makers, Inc., et al. (NFP)
71A04-1008-PL-599
Civil plenary. Affirms entry of judgment in favor of Kramer Furniture and Cabinet Makers on Kramer Furniture’s complaint on account, for breach of contract and unjust enrichment on the Kramers’ counterclaim, and on the Kramers’ third-party complaint against Thomas Kramer.

Nathaniel Dawn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-CR-1136
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

A.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1010-JV-668
Juvenile. Affirms admission of contraband evidence. A.B. was not in custody when during a pat-down search police the found the contraband evidence, meaning A.B. was not entitled to a Miranda warning.

Carl C. Tucker v.State of Indiana (NFP)
05A05-1010-CR-779
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Affirms aggregate sentence of eight years.

Robert A. Nelson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
91A02-1012-CR-1291
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class C felony disarming a law enforcement officer.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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