ILNews

Opinions Oct. 14, 2011

October 14, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Cedric Tharpe v. State of Indiana
49A04-1101-CR-24
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder. Tharpe didn’t show the judge who presided over his case was biased or prejudiced, nor did he demonstrate his trial was unfair. The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying his motion for continuance and there is sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

Nathan Allyn Richardson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1012-CR-757
Criminal. Affirms imposition of three-year executed sentence following revocation of probation.

Amber Easton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-214
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Matthew Spoonemore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1102-CR-64
Criminal. Affirms order that Spoonemore pay Indiana Ticket Company $29,700 in restitution. Remands for the trial court to determine whether it wishes to exercise its discretion and enter judgment as a Class A misdemeanor instead of a Class D felony for theft.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.Y., and D.H. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs. and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A04-1102-JT-107
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of H.G.; M.G. and D.G. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs. (NFP)
82A04-1011-JT-730
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

T.C. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-JV-231
Juvenile. Affirms finding of delinquency.

Eugene M. Gray Trust, A-1 Vacuum, Northwest Optical, and Marion County, Indiana v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-PL-1329
Civil plenary. Affirms decision regarding the amount of interest due to the trust as part of an eminent domain action.

Gordon Northrup, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1103-PC-272
Post conviction. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brian Loveall v. Susan (Loveall) Kelly (NFP)
23A01-1102-DR-47
Domestic relation. Affirms grant of mother’s petition for modification of child support.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT