ILNews

Opinions Nov. 7, 2013

November 7, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Debra Minott, Faith Laird, Patti Bailey v. Lee Alan Bryant Health Care Facilities, Inc.; Parkview Residential Care Center, L.L.C.; Parke County Residential Care Center, L.L.C., et al.
49A05-1305-PL-213
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of state’s request for restitution for damages paid. The Nov. 8 order was not a final judgment because it did not address the issue of restitution. Holds the law firms and creditor banks in this case are judgment creditors. Remands for further proceedings.

Michael P. Stafford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A04-1304-CR-178
Criminal. Affirms convictions and 120-year sentence for Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, Class A felony kidnapping, Class B felony burglary, Class B felony criminal confinement, and Class B felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon.

Michael Schepers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A01-1303-CR-100
Criminal. Affirms denial of Schepers’ motion to suppress and remands for retrial.

Michael Kelley v. State of Indana (NFP)
45A04-1303-PC-161
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

David Fields v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1301-PC-3
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Anthony Tsikouris, Diann Tsikouris, and the 601 Building, Inc., v. LaPorte Savings Bank (NFP)
46A05-1212-MF-659
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of bank on its foreclosure action. However, the amount of the damages was erroneous, and the trial court therefore abused its discretion when it denied the motion to correct error. Additionally, the motion to correct error should have been granted as to the award of attorney fees. Remands with instructions to conduct a hearing on damages and attorney fees.

State of Indiana v. Jerramy Bushong (NFP)
67A04-1304-CR-196
Criminal. Affirms denial of the state’s motion to correct error, which challenged the grant of a motion to suppress evidence.

Jeffrey V. McCloud v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-322
Criminal. Double jeopardy principles embodied in the continuing crime doctrine bar entry of two judgments of conviction against McCloud for resisting law enforcement. The trial court erred when it imposed a sentence in excess of statutory authority against McCloud for possession of paraphernalia, as a Class A misdemeanor. McCloud’s 47-year sentence was not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B). Remands with instructions to vacate his conviction for resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor and to enter a sentence within the authorized statutory range on McCloud’s conviction for possession of paraphernalia as a Class A misdemeanor.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions 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