ILNews

Opinions Oct. 26, 2010

October 26, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Allstate Insurance Company v. Timothy Clancy, et al.
45A03-0910-CV-498
Civil. Reverses trial court’s order granting a motion to compel the production of documents. In its interlocutory appeal, Allstate Insurance Company raised the following issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion by compelling production of documents subject to the attorney-client privilege on the ground that Allstate has implicitly raised an advice of counsel defense, thereby waiving the attorney-client privilege.

Nathan Brock v. State of Indiana
38A02-1003-CR-272
Criminal. Affirms Nathan Brock’s conviction of operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life, a Class C felony. Brock argued his convictions violated double jeopardy because the trial court granted the state’s request for a mistrial at the close of the first trial in the absence of a manifest necessity to do so, and then permitted the state to retry Brock, resulting in his conviction. Indiana Court of Appeals found the mistrial and subsequent retrial did not violate double jeopardy.

Troy Burge v. State of Indiana (NFP)
56A03-1006-CR-331
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion for credit time and time served.

Russell Timmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-0910-CR-567
Criminal. Affirms conviction of confinement, a Class C felony.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of C.O.V.; C.L.V. and T.G. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1003-JT-445
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

O.P. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1003-EX-408
Civil. Affirms Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development’s denial of request for unemployment benefits.

The Law Offices of Wayne Greeson, PC, and Shammah Investments, LLC v. Steuben County Auditor (NFP)
76A03-1003-MI-122
Civil. Affirms trial court’s judgment in favor of Steuben County Auditor regarding attorney fees in tax sales.

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