ILNews

Opinions Nov. 13, 2012

November 13, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
D.C. v. J.A.C.
32S04-1206-DR-349
Domestic relation/modification of custody. Reverses Court of Appeals ruling that overturned a trial court modification of a custody order in favor of a child’s father. In a case involving a mother who was moving out of state, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred by failing to apply a highly deferential standard of review to the trial court’s determination of a custody modification based on testimony regarding the best interests of the child.

John Haegert v. University of Evansville
82S01-1204-PL-235
Civil Plenary. Affirms trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the university after Haegert filed a complaint alleging defamation, tortuous breach of his employment contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the university failed to meet its burden of proof.  

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kevin Perry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-265
Criminal. Affirms conviction of robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, both Class B felonies, and escape, a Class C felony. Concludes the detective’s opinion was properly admitted as that of a skilled witness, the evidence was sufficient to support Perry’s convictions and the state’s closing argument did not create a fundamental error.

Robin R. Gordon v. Benny B. Gordon (NFP)
92A05-1205-DR-279
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order that mother and father share joint legal custody of minor child.

Joseph Ridge v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1112-CR-1168
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor. The COA found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in either denying Ridge’s request to hire an expert or in allowing Dr. Scott Kriger to hear the testimony of Hamilton County Sheriff’s Deputy Kent Mustain. The COA further concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Kriger’s expert testimony that Ridge was intoxicated on K2 at the time of the traffic stop.
 

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