ILNews

Opinions Sept. 15, 2010

September 15, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Alexander Gatzimos, M.D. v. Boone County and State of Indiana
06A05-0911-CV-664
Civil. Grants the state’s motion to dismiss Dr. Gatzimos’ appeal of the trial court order denying his petition for expungement. Remands to the trial court to allow Gatzimos the opportunity to present admissible evidence as to whether his charges were dismissed because of mistaken identity; no offense was actually committed; or there was an absence of probable cause.

William Nolan v. City of Indianapolis
49A02-1002-CT-192
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for the City of Indianapolis. The COA holding in Nolan’s criminal appeal that his arrest was lawful precludes him from re-litigating that issue in a civil case brought by him for false arrest and false imprisonment.

Phyllis Woodsmall, et al. v. Lost Creek Township Conservation Club, Inc.
84A01-1001-PL-33
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment denying homeowners injunctive relief on Woodsmall and the other’s nuisance claim. The evidence doesn’t lead solely to the conclusion that Lost Creek used its property to the detriment of the homeowners.

Joshua H. Field v. State of Indiana (NFP)
67A05-1003-CR-262
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor intimidation and remands with instructions to vacate this conviction and sentence.

N.L., Alleged to be CHINS; B.L. v. Marion County DCS and Child Advocates (NFP)
49A02-1002-JC-140
Juvenile. Affirms determination that N.L. is a child in need of services.

Kyle Kiplinger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
62A01-1004-CR-195
Criminal. Affirms 65-year sentence for murder imposed during a re-sentencing hearing.

Michael Hay v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1002-CR-90
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft.

Dennis Roberson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A04-1001-PC-102
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Quentin A. Spencer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1002-CR-62
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies fraud and theft.

Neil A. Short v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1002-CR-54
Criminal. Affirms conviction of sexual misconduct with a minor as a Class C felony.

George D. Harding, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1003-CR-202
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor as Class C felonies.

Lusako G. Musopole v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1002-CR-71
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Maurits Wiersema v. Lisa (Wiersema) Bauman (NFP)
02A03-0912-CV-571
Civil. Affirms valuation of Wiersema’s IMAGI holdings at the time of final separation at $1,000,000.00, including 2007 tax refunds in the marital estate, assigning half of the Sycamore Hills membership to Bauman, assigning the Bauman Investment to Bauman, and assessing GAL fees. Reverses decision to include unvested portions of Wiersema’s IMA 401(k) in the marital estate and failure to assign liability for half of certain property taxes paid post-filing by Wiersema to Bauman. Remands to revise the final dissolution order so as not to include the unvested portions of Wiersema’s 401(k) in the marital estate, assign half of the property tax liability to Bauman, and recalculate the distribution of the marital estate as appropriate.

Robert Coslet v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1003-CR-147
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed after revocation of probation.

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