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. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

ADVERTISEMENT