ILNews

Opinions Oct. 11, 2012

October 11, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Edward Jeroski, doing business as USA Cleaning Service and Building Maintenance v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission and U.S. Secretary of Labor
11-3687
Agency review. Denies USA Cleaning’s petition to review the order of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, which affirmed the denial of an application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The meaning of “prevailing party” under the act does not apply to USA Cleaning, which was the subject of an order by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration that was later dropped.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

William A. Boyd and Janice Ann Boyd v. State of Indiana
28A01-1203-PL-108
Civil plenary. Affirms the state’s taking of the Boyds’ property for use in constructing Interstate-69 in southwest Indiana. None of the Boyds’ claims are reviewable in eminent domain proceedings.

David E. Lyons v. State of Indiana
76A03-1112-CR-582
Criminal. Affirms convictions of five counts of Class A felony child molesting. The requirements of Evidence Rule 702 were satisfied and the admission of Dr. Judith Williams’ testimony did not constitute error or a fundamental error.

Andrew Machi v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A04-1203-CR-166
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Daniel Crabtree v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1203-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed after Crabtree’s probation for Class C felony child molesting was revoked.

Matthew Bryant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1110-CR-496
Criminal. Reduces Bryant’s conviction of Class C felony battery to a Class B misdemeanor and remands for resentencing, which will have no effect on his aggregate 93-year sentence. Affirms remaining convictions of Class A felony burglary, two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, and two counts of Class C felony intimidation.

Shellie P. App v. William App, Jr. (NFP)
67A01-1203-DR-99
Domestic relation. Finds trial court erred by entering a post-secondary educational expense order in the absence of a worksheet or its own findings and conclusions and by failing to specify which parent should claim the child as a dependent for tax purposes. Affirms in all other respects. Remands with instructions.

John Tompkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1111-CR-690
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony burglary and status as a habitual offender.
 

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