ILNews

Opinions Nov. 14, 2013

November 14, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Darliss Wert and Gary Wert v. Meridian Security Insurance Company
15A01-1306-CT-252
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the insurance company on the Werts’ underinsured-motorist claim. Provisions in the insurance contract, when read together, make it unclear when the Werts should have filed a lawsuit to preserve their claim and may completely foreclose their ability to file a lawsuit.

The Novogroder Companies, Inc., v. Michael J. Massaro

45A03-1303-PL-98
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of injunctive relief to Novogroder Companies on its efforts to enjoin Massaro from cooking foods at the leased premises. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant preliminary injunctive relief to abate a nuisance.  

Donald Warren v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1301-CR-16
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies burglary and conspiracy to commit burglary.

Christopher Roberts v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1304-CR-199
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of G.H., (Minor Child) and D.H.(Father) v. Marion County Department of Child Services, Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)

49A02-1303-JT-284
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In Re the Matter of D.H., J.H., A.H., N.H., P.H., S.H., D.H., J.H., and D.H.; Children Alleged to be Children in Need of Services, T.H. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1304-JC-334
Juvenile. Affirms determination the children are children in need of services.

Louis Shepherd, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A01-1304-CR-169
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and sentence. Remands with instructions to correct the judgment of conviction such that it does not reflect a conviction on the Class D felony criminal confinement charge due to double jeopardy issues.  

Randy Terrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A04-1303-CR-147
Criminal. Affirms sentence following convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, two counts of Class B felony burglary, and Class D felonies possession of chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, maintaining a common nuisance and two counts of theft.

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. 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