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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT