ILNews

Opinions Oct. 28, 2011

October 28, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Rick Gillespie, Dawn Gillespie and Rick's Towing and Maintenance, LLC v. Frank B. Niles and Kathryn Niles
49A05-1102-CT-70
Civil tort. Affirms denial of the Gillespies’ objection to the Nileses’ request for a pre-trial conference and refusal to dismiss the action under Indiana Trial Rule 41(E). Affirms grant of summary judgment for the Niles and denial of summary judgment for the Gillespies. The Gillespies failed to wait the required 15 days before selling Kathryn’s vehicle at auction. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment against the Gillespies individually as the judgment should be against Rick’s Towing only.

R.R.F. v. L.L.F.
69A01-1102-DR-70
Domestic relation. Affirms order on remand apportioning post-secondary educational expenses for the parties’ son between father and mother. The appellate court has subject matter jurisdiction because the order on remand is an appealable final judgment and the dissolution court’s allocation of the benefits of the tax credits as a result of the son’s enrollment in college was not clearly erroneous.

M.L. v. Meridian Services, Inc.
18A02-1103-MH-233
Mental health. Affirms M.L.’s temporary commitment to a state-operated facility for a 90-day period because there is clear and convincing evidence he was dangerous. Reverses the authorization to administer medication because there is insufficient evidence to support it.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of E.P. (Minor child) and A.P. and J.P. (Parents); A.P. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
47A01-1101-JT-38
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

Terry Laderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-221
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Farrell Haycraft v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1009-PC-525
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

James Traylor v. Beth Traylor (NFP)
29A02-1102-DR-247
Domestic relation. Affirms finding James Traylor was in contempt and the stayed $6,500 portion of the fine and the attorney fee award were proper sanctions. Reverses first $6,500 portion of the fine because it was improper. Remands for that portion to be vacated.

Weida Levee, LLC v. Doug Brooks and Regina Brooks (NFP)
79A05-1012-CT-739
Civil tort. Affirms order in favor of the Brookses in a case involving a lease of commercial space.

Blease White, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1101-PC-16
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Buzz Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A05-1104-PC-183
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

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