ILNews

Opinions May 27, 2014

May 27, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Alden v. State of Indiana
30A05-1309-MI-463
Miscellaneous. Reverses denial of motion to prohibit the release of Alden’s criminal record. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion on the basis that the Legislature had repealed I.C. 35-38-8-3. Remands for the trial court to consider the merits of his motion.

Richard M. Tallman v. State of Indiana, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, et al. (NFP)
51A01-1305-PL-241
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the Department of Natural Resources and other state actors on Tallman’s complaint alleging that DNR officer Anthony Mann negligently injured Tallman when he arrested him.

In Re: The Paternity of A.G.P.; M.O. v. R.K.P. (NFP)
39A05-1311-JP-558
Juvenile. Affirms denial to set aside a paternity decree.

Tamara J. Shidler, surviving spouse of Michael R. Shidler v. Dennis G. Lockrey, M.D., and Sigma Medical Group, LLC, d/b/a Sigma Med Express Care, and James D. Pike, D.O., et al. (NFP)
79A05-1308-CT-410
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of defendants on Shidler’s medical malpractice complaint.

Troy A. Bratton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1310-CR-513
Criminal. Affirms the trial court decision that declined to find Bratton’s mental health to be a mitigating circumstance. Reverses Bratton’s sentence and the award of 67 days of credit time. Remands with instructions.

Chukwuemeka Chidebelu-Eze v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1308-CR-720
Criminal. Affirms battery convictions, one as a Class C felony and one as a Class D felony, and Eze’s sentence.

Marquise Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-869
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony attempted aggravated battery.

Dana Banks v. Evans Limestone Co. (NFP)
93A02-1307-EX-600
Agency action. Affirms denial of Dana Banks’ petition for lack of diligence, which was filed against his employer, Evans Limestone, which refused to authorize a spinal cord stimulator procedure that was recommended by three physicians.

Timothy E. Gabehart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
70A01-1401-CR-2
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of L.B. and J.B., W.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
73A04-1310-JT-545
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Breondon D. Pinkston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1309-CR-481
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Jackie Robson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A04-1309-CR-486
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony child molesting.

James E. Robinson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A02-1308-PC-775
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands for an evidentiary hearing.

Leonel H. Arellano v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1309-CR-373
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for child molesting as a Class A felony and two counts of child molesting as Class C felonies.

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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

ADVERTISEMENT