ILNews

Opinions Nov. 17, 2011

November 17, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no Indiana opinions as of IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
Indiana Spine Group, PC v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC
93S02-1102-EX-90
Miscellaneous. Reverses decision by Worker’s Compensation Board dismissing as untimely Indiana Spine Group’s application for adjustment of claim. Holds that the Worker’s Compensation Act is silent on the question of the limitation period applicable to a medical provider’s claim seeking payment of outstanding bills for authorized treatment to an employer’s employee. Holds that the limitation period contained in the general statute of limitation controls. Remands for further proceedings consistent with opinion.

D.C. v. State of Indiana
49S02-1102-JV-116
Juvenile. Reverses trial court’s dispositional order imposing a determinate commitment of two years in the Department of Correction, to be followed by an indeterminate commitment, holding that the determinate and indeterminate commitment statutes are unambiguously mutually exclusive. Remands to the court to determine which type of commitment is appropriate.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David Hoffman v. State of Indiana
03A01-1104-CR-180
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of Hoffman’s motion to dismiss, holding that he is not entitled to relief on double jeopardy grounds because the record fails to prove that being demoted by the United States Army was related to his arrest, and the Army action was not equivalent to prosecution by the state.

Jane Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis
49A02-1107-CT-595
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s determination that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis had no legal responsibility to continue paying for Jane Doe’s therapy costs, as the Archdiocese had been paying for counseling voluntarily.

Lindell Patterson v. State of Indiana
49A05-1102-CR-38
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, holding that because an officer was able to discern during a pat-down search that Patterson had marijuana in his pocket, the evidence was admissible under the “plain feel” doctrine.

Shawn Brent v. State of Indiana
34A04-1105-CR-268
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, holding that because police officers did not find marijuana on Brent or see him discard it, no proof exists of actual possession. Reverses Class B misdemeanor visiting a common nuisance based on the state’s concession that it did not prove that claim.

Larry Michael Caraway v. State of Indiana
47A01-1104-CR-162
Criminal. Reverses 65-year sentence for murder, holding that the court abused its discretion when it failed to consider Caraway’s guilty plea as a mitigator. Remands to the court for resentencing consistent with opinion.  

Bren Simon, as Personal Rep. of the Estate of Melvin Simon; and Bren Simon, as Trustee of the Melvin Simon Family Enterprises Trust Agreement v. Deborah J. Simon, Simon Property Group, Inc., et al.
29A05-1012-ES-760
Estate, supervised. Dismisses appeal, holding that because Bren Simon was dismissed as personal representative, she does not have authority to pursue an appeal in a representative capacity.

Cordell M. Wells v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A04-1101-CR-32
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and trial court’s order that Wells serve two years of his previously suspended sentence.

Rissie M. Green v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Covenant Care Indiana (NFP)
93A02-1105-EX-421
Miscellaneous. Affirms decision by Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board affirming an administrative law judge’s decision to dismiss Green’s appeal.

Leroy G. Meahl v. Donna J. Meahl (NFP)
36A01-1104-DR-188
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order dissolving marriage.

In Re the Marriage of: Mary K. (Butler) Weir v. Steven J. Butler (NFP)
02A05-1105-DR-287
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s decision in favor of Steven Butler, holding the court properly awarded child support credit for college expense payments.

Ralph Goodman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1105-CR-435
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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