ILNews

Opinions Oct. 1, 2013

October 1, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Christina Atkins, and Kyla Atkins, by her parent and next friend Christina Atkins v. Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC
49A02-1302-CT-181
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Atkins’ motion for leave to file a belated appeal under Indiana Trial Rule 72(E). Finds in order for remedy under the trial rule, counsel has to first establish either the court did not send a copy of the order, ruling or judgment or sent a copy to the wrong address. Lack of notice is the prerequisite before any relief can be granted. Atkins’ counsel received notice of the court’s judgment in favor of Veolia but misfiled it. Therefore, Atkins had received the notice and cannot obtain relief under Rule 72(E).

Samuel C. Bowyer v. Kelley S. Bowyer (NFP)
18A02-1301-DR-88
Domestic relation. Reverses and remands denial of Sam Bowyer’s petition for modification of his child support. In his dissent, Judge James Kirsch concurred with the reversal but disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Bowyer’s petition on the basis that 12 months had not lapsed between the time the support order was issued and the petition was filed. Kirsch maintained since Kelley Bowyer did not raise the issue of the premature filing until nearly 18 months after the support order was entered, the trial court should have exercised is discretion and deemed the petition re-filed at the end of the 12-month period.  

Kenneth W. Gibbs-El v. Christopher E. Meloy, et al. (NFP)
49A04-1303-PL-101
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court’s decision to grant the parole board’s motion to dismiss Gibbs-El’s “civil plenary action suit for damages.”

Brant Construction, LLC; and Dune Harbor, LLC v. Circle R Electric, Inc.; DeBoer Egolf Corporation; Auditor, Porter County, Indiana; First National Bank of Illinois; and Wachovia Financial Svcs. (NFP)

64A03-1204-CC-159
Civil collection. Grants Brant Construction’s and Dune Harbor’s petition for a rehearing on their claim that any decision regarding their contracts with Circle R should also apply with equal force to their contracts with DeBoer Egolf. Also denies their “Motion to Ratify Clerk’s Inadvertent Consolidation of Appeals and for Consolidated Briefing Schedule” as moot.

Warren E. Large v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1303-CR-133
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order that Large serve his previously suspended sentence for violating the terms of his probation.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT