ILNews

Opinions Oct. 12, 2010

October 12, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America and State of New York, et al. v. Cinergy Corp., et al.
No. 1:99-CV-1693
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney.
Civil. Reverses District Court ruling in the government’s favor regarding modifications involving sulphur dioxide emissions because Cinergy met the standard that was authorized by a state plan the Environmental Protection Agency approved. Finds the District Court should not have admitted evidence by the EPA’s expert witnesses. Rules that without expert testimony to support an estimate of actual emissions caused by the modifications, the government cannot prevail with respect to the charge of nitrogen oxide pollution. Dismisses cross-appeal.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dwight Murdock v. Estate of Sharron K. Murdock
45A03-0912-CV-585
Civil. Reverses enforcement of marital property settlement document, including its provision that the issue of abandonment is moot, and remands for further proceedings addressing the issue of whether Dwight forfeited the right to inherit from Sharron’s estate after she died during the dissolution process.

Deere & Co. v. Travis Hostetler & New Holland Rochester
25A05-1006-CC-367
Civil collection. Reverses trial court order giving New Holland prejudgment possession of farm equipment and remands with instructions to enter an order granting Deere prejudgment possession of the equipment in question. Rules New Holland was not a bona fide purchaser because it had actual notice of Deere’s liens.

In Re the Guardianship of A.M.N.; M.N. and E.N. v. B.C. (NFP)
39A01-1001-GU-73
Guardianship. Affirms trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the grandparents’ guardianship in favor of mother.

Kenneth Pairsh v. Annette Pairsh (NFP)
18A02-1002-DR-151
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s denial of Kenneth Pairsh’s request for spousal maintenance and its distribution of marital property

Emmanuel T. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1003-CR-199
Criminal. Affirms 15-year sentence for Class B felony aggravated battery.

Anthony Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1002-CR-352
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony auto theft.

Luther J. Gant v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A03-1004-CR-208
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery and 15-year sentence.

Ronnie Drane v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-0912-PC-600
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Michelle Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1002-CR-119
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor battery on a law enforcement officer, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT