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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT