ILNews

Opinions Sept. 6, 2011

September 6, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jeffrey William Paul v. Helen J. Marberry, et al.
10-3670
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Reverses District Court’s denial of Paul’s motion to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis on the grounds that he had three strikes and remands for further proceedings. Since most prisoners litigate their civil claims pro se, they should not be required to speculate on the grounds the judge could or even should have based the dismissal on. Classifying a strike depends on the grounds given for it.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re: The Order of Contempt Against Craig Benson, Martinsville Depot, Inc., and SBS Enterprises, Inc. v. Co-Alliance, LLP
55A04-1010-CC-646
Civil collection. Affirms order finding Benson in contempt. Any error in the verification process of the contempt motion did not affect Benson’s substantial rights. The trial court also had jurisdiction to order him to pay $75,000 to the Morgan County Clerk.  

Clarence T. Hawkins James v. State of Indiana

20A05-1101-CR-61
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony conspiracy to commit armed robbery, Class B felony burglary, and Class C felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. The charges against James were not only alleged as separate and distinct acts; the charges as alleged were proved by separate and distinct evidentiary facts. There is no reasonable possibility the jury relied on the same evidentiary facts to find him guilty of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. The trial court did not err in instructing the jury.

L.R. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1101-JV-25
Juvenile. Affirms denial of motion to vacate and set aside juvenile delinquency adjudications.

Keland L. Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)

34A02-1010-MI-1145
Miscellaneous. Reverses denial of motion to set aside default judgment and remands for the trial court to vacate the entry of default judgment and for further proceedings.

Torin Herbert v. State of Indiana (NFP)

79A02-1010-PC-1080
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Keytron W. Johnson v. Sate of Indiana (NFP)

02A04-1101-PC-45
Post conviction. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted three transfers and denied 28 for the week ending Sept. 2.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

ADVERTISEMENT