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
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