ILNews

Opinions Nov. 18, 2011

November 18, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. v. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
11-2438
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL No. 1700
Denies petition for the extraordinary writ of mandamus, holding that the petitioner failed to show that it has a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

David Marks and Karen Marks v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company
45A05-1011-CT-675
Civil tort. On petition for rehearing, affirms original decision in all respects, holding that the semi-trailer from which David Marks fell was owned by a subcontractor of a general contractor, and therefore Northern Indiana Public Service Co. is not liable for the accident.

Alesha Houston and Donna Gruzinsky v. State of Indiana
49A02-1101-CR-77
Criminal. Affirms Houston’s and Gruzinsky’s convictions of Class B misdemeanor failure to ensure school attendance, holding that the attendance officer at the schools were legally required to prepare and file referral records as part of the proceedings in Gruzinsky’s case, and that regardless of whether Houston’s lawyer had objected to the admission of hearsay documents, the objection would not have been sustained.

Jose J. Martinez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1101-PC-139
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Becky Melton v. Michael Melton (NFP)
71A03-1105-DR-217
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order denying in part and granting in part Becky Melton’s motion to correct error, holding the court did not abuse its discretion in its division of property.

Tracy D. Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1102-CR-75
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence of 20 years for Class B felony armed robbery, Class D felony pointing a firearm and associated charges.

Becky Jayne Wells v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A04-1012-CR-798
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class C felony possession of methamphetamine.

Michael Ratliff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1104-CR-127
Criminal. Affirms executed sentence for Class C felony possession of a controlled substance.

Patricia Abram v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1103-CR-122
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


 

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