ILNews

Opinions Sept. 5, 2012

September 5, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Victor George v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana Inc.
11-3291
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Civil. Vacates grant of Junior Achievement’s motion for summary judgment on the Employment Retirement Income Security Act claim and dismissal of George’s state-law claims without prejudice. The District Court must decide whether there is some other ground on which the case may be resolved short of trial or whether a trial on causation is necessary.  

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Cody B. Honeycutt v. State of Indiana
92A04-1203-CR-149
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to dismiss charges on grounds that they were barred by the Successive Prosecution Statute. Because the four charges were supported by probable cause and based on a series of acts so connected that they constituted parts of a single scheme or plan, they should have been charged in a single prosecution.

Napoleon Gracia, Sr. v. State of Indiana
34A04-1112-CR-667
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony disarming of a law enforcement officer, Class A misdemeanor battery, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. While the filing of charges in Howard Superior Court I was an error, Gracia did not object to the filing and was unable to show fundamental error. He is also not entitled to the jury instruction on excessive use of force by police and his sentence is appropriate.

William LaShun Caples v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1202-CR-69
Criminal. Affirms denial of Caples’ motion to set aside jury verdict convicting him of three counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Charles Blakemore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-77
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Najee S. Blackman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1203-CR-335
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Estate of Lewis G. Mark, Deceased, and Evelyn J. Mark v. 1st Source Bank (NFP)
71A03-1203-MF-143
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment for 1st Source as to its foreclosure complaint.

In the Matter of Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.H., C.H., & A.H.; and D.M. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
54A05-1202-JT-56
Juvenile termination of rights. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: Z.B., G.B., K.B., & S.B.; and T.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
64A03-1201-JT-31
Juvenile termination of rights. Affirms termination of parental rights.
 

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