ILNews

Opinions Sept. 1, 2010

September 1, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court

Suzanne Eads and James Atterhold, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance v. Community Hospital
No. 45S03-1001-CV-33
Civil. Rules general negligence claims filed with the Indiana Department of Insurance can continue an action already filed in state court relating to medical malpractice issues.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Paul E. Armstrong, Jr. v. State of Indiana
38A02-1002-PC-137
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.  The post-conviction court did not err by finding that Armstrong received effective assistance of counsel; Armstrong’s plea of guilty was voluntary; the state established a sufficient factual basis; and any error that stemmed from Armstrong not being represented by counsel at the sentencing hearing is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mickey Sloan v. Town Council of the Town of Patoka
26A01-0910-CV-506
Civil. Reverses decision in favor of the town council, denying Sloan’s claim of inverse condemnation of a certain part of his real estate by the town of Patoka. The Town of Patoka’s use of Sloan’s property as a roadway without prior compensation being paid to Sloan or his predecessor in title constitutes a “taking” under an inverse condemnation theory. Remands for further proceedings.

Stuart A. Clampitt v. State of Indiana
54A01-1002-CR-64
Criminal. Reverses order denying Clampitt’s motion to remove his status as a sexually violent predator. The Montgomery Circuit Court had jurisdiction to rule on his motion. Remands with instructions.

Alrita Morehead v. Duane Deitrich
09A04-1003-CT-172
Civil Tort. Affirms summary judgment for Deitrich in Morehead’s suit after she was bit by a dog that was living in a home Deitrich rented. The undisputed facts are that Deitrich was neither the owner nor the keeper of his tenants’ dog. Thus, as a matter of law, he had no duty to confine or restrain the dog.

Nathan R. Cook v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-CR-36
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Kenneth W. Rhymer, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

21A01-1004-CR-174
Criminal. Affirms probation revocation.

Robert Browning v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1002-CR-122
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated as a Class C misdemeanor.

James N. Hamilton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1001-CR-29
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for receiving stolen property as a Class D felony.

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