ILNews

Opinions Oct. 2, 2012

October 2, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Moise Joseph v. State of Indiana
82A05-1108-CR-387
Criminal. Reverses convictions of Class A felony burglary resulting in serious bodily injury, Class B felony attempted armed robbery and Class B felony criminal confinement. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting Joseph’s statements to the police detective.

Willie Bigsbee v. State of Indiana
34A02-1201-CR-60
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine. Finds trial court did not err in overruling Batson objections, and there is sufficient evidence to support the convictions.

Brian Yost v. Wabash College, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc., Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity - Indiana Gamma Chapter at Wabash College, and Nathan Cravens
54A01-1201-CT-31
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Wabash and the Phi Kappa Psi defendants in Yost’s suit seeking compensatory and punitive damages after he was injured by his fraternity brothers. The defendants did not breach any duty owed to Yost and finds Yost was not a victim of hazing under the state’s anti-hazing statute or of other foreseeable criminal conduct. Judge Vaidik concurs in part and dissents in part.

Raymond C. Tisdale v. Christine M. (Tisdale) Bolick (NFP)
49A02-1202-DR-138
Domestic relation. Reverses order in which the court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Raymond Tisdale’s petition to modify child support. Remands with instructions to hold a hearing.

Douglas Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1201-CR-5
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for felony murder.

Lora L. Karr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1112-CR-591
Criminal. Affirms denial of pretrial motion to suppress.

Scott J. Welton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A05-1202-CR-67
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Garrett Andrew Plumlee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1203-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony criminal recklessness.

Herbert Preasha v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1204-CR-173
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to have certain items seized at the time of Preasha’s arrest returned to him. Remands with instructions.

Tracy A. Lawrence v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1203-CR-125
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Arthur J. Bryant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A04-1109-PC-542
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 

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