ILNews

Opinions May 30, 2012

May 30, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Clifton Ervin v. State of Indiana
29A05-1109-CR-454
Criminal. Affirms grant of a portion of Ervin’s motion to suppress. The trial court properly determined that the evidence seized by the uniformed on-duty police officers should not be suppressed pursuant to the exclusionary rule. Remands for trial.

James Androusky, II, Individually and as Personal Rep. of the Estate of James Androusky, III, Deceased v. Cole A. Walter and Tammra Androusky
83A01-1103-CT-137
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of Cole in a wrongful death action following the drowning death of James Androusky II’s son. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury regarding licensee versus invitee status, on abandonment under the Child Wrongful Death Act, regarding a state administrative pool safety regulation, or on the effect of a parent’s failure to supervise his or her child around a known or obvious condition upon the land.  

Dianne L. Perkins v. Jeffrey Stesiak, and Pfeifer, Morgan and Stesiak
71A03-1111-PL-521
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Jeffrey Stesiak and the law firm in Perkins’ legal malpractice action against Stesiak for not filing her claim for emotional distress against a school district. Perkins does not have a viable claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the bystander theory of recovery or Indiana’s modified impact rule.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.K.; O.K. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
22A01-1110-JT-485
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights. There is clear and convincing evidence that the conditions that led to D.K.’s initial removal and continued placement outside of the mother’s care would not be remedied.

Donald Everling v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1108-CR-487
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.R.: K.C. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
15A04-1110-JT-587
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Kamal El-Adnani v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1109-CR-463
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felonies battery resulting in serious bodily injury and neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury.

The Estate of Rose Graves v. Anonymous Nursing Home (NFP)
45A03-1112-CT-560
Civil tort. Affirms grant of a motion to dismiss the estate’s proposed medical malpractice complaint against Anonymous Nursing Home.

David E. Schalk v. Yellow Book Sales and Distribution Co., Inc. (NFP)
53A05-1110-CC-535
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Yellow Book Sales and Distribution Co. regarding its breach of contract claim against Schalk for advertising services that it provided.

Robert Allen Barker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A05-1108-CR-401
Criminal. Affirms sentence for conviction of murder and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Mitchell L. Rogers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1110-PC-1028
Post conviction. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies criminal deviate conduct and battery. Remands with instructions to vacate the conviction of Class D felony sexual battery and reinstate the conviction of criminal confinement as a Class D felony and impose a sentence consistent with the instructions of the opinion.

Melvin Bishop v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1101-CR-1
Criminal. Grants rehearing for the limited purpose of addressing Bishop’s arguments and clarifying original analysis. Affirms opinion in all respects. Judge Brown concurs and dissents.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT