ILNews

Opinions Nov. 2, 2011

November 2, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Monte Murphy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1009-CR-1040
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of receiving a ballot, entered as Class A misdemeanors.

Wilkie Brooks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-278
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Ronald J. Lampitok v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1011-CR-773
Criminal. Reverses conviction of and sentence for carrying a handgun without a license. Finds harmless errors in admitting Exhibit 44 and allowing the state to amend its charging information for Lampitok’s habitual offender charge.

Steven D. Hadley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A05-1106-CR-299
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony criminal confinement while armed with a deadly weapon and Class B felony criminal confinement.

Janet Greenwell v. Gregory J. Loomis, M.D. and Matthew B. Kern, M.D. (NFP)
82A04-1003-CT-173
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of doctors Gregory Loomis and Matthew Kern on Greenwell’s medical malpractice complaint.

Stan Rekewig LLC, Stanley Rekewig, Susan K. Rekewig, et al. v. Dickason Truck & Equipment, Inc., n/k/a FSD Enterprises, Inc., Frank W. Dickason Trust Number One, et al. (NFP)
90A02-1012-CC-1371
Civil collection. Affirms judgment of foreclosure of real estate in favor of Dickason Truck Equipment.

Indiana Tax Court
Jaklin Idris and Dariana Kamenova v. Marion County Assessor
49T10-1108-TA-49
Tax. Denies the assessor’s motion in its entirety to dismiss Idris’ and Kamenova’s tax appeal. Idris’ reliance on the clerk as the means to effect service did not run afoul of statutory requirements for initiating an original tax appeal under Indiana Code 6-1.1-15-5 because that statute recites no preference for any particular method of service. While Idris’ method of service admittedly did not comply with Tax Court Rule 16(C), it was consistent with the spirit and purpose of the rule.
 

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