ILNews

Opinions - May 25, 2010

May 25, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court

Desmond Davidson v. State of Indiana
49S02-1001-CR-41
Criminal. Affirms trial court and agrees with Court of Appeals. Finds that upon the review of sentence appropriateness under Appellate Rule 7, appellate courts may consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial judge in sentencing the defendant. Disapproves of the contrary views expressed in Eaton, 825 N.E.2d at 1290–91; Pagan, 809 N.E.2d at 926; and Cox, 792 N.E.2d at 904.

Indiana Family and Social Services Administration v. Alice V. Meyer, et al.
69S01-0905-CV-233
Civil. Unanimously holds the trial court has no authority to grant a motion for an extension of time to file the record if the motion is filed after the time for filing the record and any previous extensions have expired. Supreme Court is divided as to whether a case may go forward where a full record of proceedings has not been filed. The Court of Appeals decision therefore remains in place and the trial court‘s order remanding this case to FSSA is affirmed.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Susan Kozlowski v. Lake County Plan Commission, Dordija Dordieski, Lana Dordieski, Jon Bruskoski, and Liberty Bruskoski
45A03-0909-CV-430
Civil. Affirms denial of Kozlowski’s motion for summary judgment regarding her claims against the Dordieskis and the Bruskoskis and the Lake County Plan Commission. Grants the request of the Dordieskis and the Bruskoskis for appellate fees, and remands for a determination of reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees.

Cynthia VanTreese v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-PC-1271
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of VanTreese’s petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged her 1981 conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana or hashish.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of H.J.F.; S.S.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
71A03-1002-JT-68
Juvenile. Affirms probate court’s order involuntarily terminating S.S.W. (mother)’s parental rights to H.J.F.

Timothy Bitter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-0908-CR-382
Criminal. Reverses and remands Bitter’s conviction of and sentence for child molesting as a Class C felony.

Mitchell L. King v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-0911-CR-505
Criminal. Affirms King’s conviction by jury of theft as a Class D felony.

Richard Saunders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-0911-CR-554
Criminal. Affirms Saunders’ conviction of dealing in a schedule II controlled substance, a Class A felony.

Juan Beasley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-CR-1019
Criminal. Affirms Beasley’s conviction of two counts of robbery as Class B felonies.

Nelisa Glover v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0911-CR-620
Criminal. Affirms Glover’s conviction of Class A misdemeanor prostitution.

B.G. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Celadon Trucking Services Inc. (NFP)
93A02-0910-EX-1030
Administrative. Affirms decision of the Unemployment Insurance Review Board to affirm the dismissal of B.G.’s appeal from the denial of unemployment benefits for failure to appear for a telephonic, evidentiary hearing.

David Smith v. First Farm Mutual Insurance Co. (NFP)
36A01-0912-CV-574
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of First Farm Mutual Insurance Company on Smith’s claim for breach of insurance contract.

Steven Scott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-CR-1048
Criminal. Affirms Scott’s conviction of battery as a Class A misdemeanor.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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