ILNews

Opinions Oct. 20, 2010

October 20, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
J.B. v. E.B.
34A04-1002-DR-110
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court decision to exclude son’s counseling records at a custody modification hearing. The instant case is a proceeding within the purview of Indiana Code Section 31-32-11-1 and the counselor/client privilege does not apply. Remands for further proceedings.  

Charles R. Wyatt, et al. v. Thomas E. Wheeler, et al.
49A02-1006-PL-636
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Wyatt’s petition for review of final agency action by the Indiana Election Commission and petition for preliminary injunctive and declarative relief. Affirms denial of Ellspermann’s request for attorney’s fees. The irregularity in Ellspermann’s declaration and any misconstruction of Indiana Code Section 3-8-2-7 by the IEC or the Marion Superior Court cannot justify reversal of the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction because it would contradict the will of the electorate and disenfranchise voters.

Keesha Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1002-CR-98
Criminal. Reverses conviction of possession of marijuana as a Class D felony.

Howard Smallwood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1001-PC-1
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Mark A. Rode v. State of Indiana (NFP)
91A04-1005-CR-263
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Bruce Fivecoat v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1003-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony armed robbery and one count of Class B felony criminal confinement.

Adoption of K.M.A.; R.R. v. Adoptive Parents (NFP)
29A02-1003-AD-499
Adoption. Affirms adoption order granted in favor of the adoptive parents.

Antrooine A. Manning v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1002-CR-65
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felony robbery, Class D felony resisting law enforcement, and adjudication as a habitual offender.

East Valparaiso LLC v. Physicians for Women, et al. (NFP)
64A05-1004-PL-222
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of East Valparaiso’s request for injunctive relief in a dispute over a lease agreement. Remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion regarding the parties’ remaining claims and counterclaims.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.A. and D.R.; C.A. and J.H. v. IDCS (NFP)
48A02-1003-JT-317
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Marlet D. Turpin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-285
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony and Class C felony child molesting.

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