ILNews

Opinions Nov. 23, 2011

November 23, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Christopher Pavey v. Patrick Conley
10-3878
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller.
Criminal. Affirms District Court’s dismissal of Pavey’s suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies for an injury that occurred while incarcerated. Holds that Pavey was aware, based on his prior experience, of proper channels for filing grievances.

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Town of Avon v. West Central Conservancy District, Washington Township, and Ronnie Austin, in his capacity as Trustee and Park Governor
32S05-1104-PL-217
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s denial of Avon’s motion for summary judgment, holding underground aquifers are “watercourses” as defined by state law and therefore community officials have the ability to reasonably regulate how that water is withdrawn and used by other local governments. Remands for proceedings consistent with opinion.

Today’s opinions:

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Monica Del Carmen Gonzalez-Servin, et. al. v. Fort Motor Company, et. al.
11-1665
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. In a consolidated appeal, the court affirmed decisions by District Courts in Indiana and Illinois granting forum non conveniens in multidistrict litigation. In the Indiana case, the court held that Judge Sarah Evans Barker was acting within her discretion in deciding that the courts of Mexico would be better suited to adjudication of a lawsuit by Mexican citizens arising from the death of another Mexican citizen in an accident in Mexico.

Fort Wayne Telsat Inc. v. JAS Partners, LTD.
11-2112
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s determination that the trustee had acted reasonably in settling the debtor’s claim against Indiana University for $100,000.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. James D. Eichorst
71A03-1102-CR-105
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s determination that Eichorst did not meet the criteria for an enhanced sentence under Indiana Code Section 9-30-5-3, holding that the court erred in its interpretation of the statute. Remands for proceedings consistent with opinion.  

State of Indiana v. Kevin Lee Traver
71A04-1102-CR-131
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s determination that Traver did not meet the criteria for an enhanced sentence under Indiana Code Section 9-30-5-3, holding that the court erred in its interpretation of the statute. Remands for proceedings consistent with opinion.  

State of Indiana v. Donald Loren Wilson
71A05-1102-CR-130
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s determination that Wilson did not meet the criteria for an enhanced sentence under Indiana Code Section 9-30-5-3, holding that the court erred in its interpretation of the statute. Remands for proceedings consistent with opinion.  

Commitment of T.S. v. Logansport State Hospital
79A02-1101-MH-86
Mental health. Affirms trial court’s decision denying T.S.’s request to be removed from the Sexual Responsibility Program at Logansport State Hospital, holding that the state presented testimony from experts that T.S. was still in need of treatment offered by the program.

Gordon B. Dempsey and Gordon B. Dempsey, PC v. Todd H. Belanger
49A04-1104-CT-201
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s denial of Dempsey’s motion to reinstate his complaint against attorney Todd H. Belanger. Holds that appellate attorney fees are warranted and remands for the limited purpose of determining Belanger’s appellate attorney fees.

Ronnie Sanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1105-CR-241
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

L.E. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and F.W.C.S. (NFP)
93A02-1104-EX-445
Miscellaneous. Remands to Indiana Department of Workforce Development’s Review Board to correct calculation error in reduction of L.E.’s unemployment benefits.

Kay Kim and Charles Chuang v. Village at Eagle Creek Homeowners Association c/o Community Association Services of Indiana; and Chubb Custom Insurance Co. (NFP)
49A02-1106-CT-479
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s summary judgment in favor of appellee-defendant and affirms trial court’s dismissal of appellants’ complaint against Chubb Custom Insurance.

Bryce D. Pope v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1103-PC-153
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Taimeka Garnett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1104-CR-192
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

David Gardner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1104-CR-198
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Christina Francis v. City of Indianapolis (NFP)
49A02-1104-OV-303
Local ordinance. Affirms trial court’s judgment finding Francis in violation of Indianapolis-Marion County Ordinance No. 531-102 for having a dog at large.

Robert and Heather Taylor v. Charles B. Caldwell (NFP)
03A04-1105-CT-254
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s decision denying damages for Heather Taylor’s alleged permanent injuries.

In the Matter of J.M.R., Child in Need of Services, M.R. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1105-JV-273
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile court’s finding that J.M.R. is a child in need of services.

George Kotsopoulos v. Peters Broadcast Engineering, Inc. (NFP)
02A03-1012-PL-675
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s denial of Kotsopoulos’ motion to correct error and judgment in favor of Peters Broadcast Engineering (PBE). Per PBE’s concession that Kotsopoulos is not individually liable, remands to the court to amend judgment by removing his individual liability for the judgment.

The Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions by 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