ILNews

Opinions Aug. 16, 2010

August 16, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gail M. Flatow and Flatow Comer, LLP v. Dwane Ingalls
49A02-0910-CV-994
Civil. Reverses denial of Flatow and Flatow Comer’s motion for summary judgment in Ingalls’ suit for legal malpractice. There is no designated evidence in the malpractice litigation to show the result of Ingalls’ partial motion for summary judgment would have been any different had a reply been filed. As a matter of law, the Flatow defendants had no duty to provide the services Ingalls claims they were negligent in failing to provide.

Paternity of P.B.; D.B. v. M.B
03A01-1001-JP-5
Juvenile paternity. Reverses and remands denial of mother’s petition to modify parenting time. The preponderance standard should have been used as the burden of proof, not clear and convincing evidence. Affirms finding father wasn’t in contempt for keeping P.B. extra days over the Christmas holiday week, the denial of mother’s request father pay her attorney’s fees and P.B.’s therapist’s fees, and the modification of the Christmas parenting time schedule.

Teresa Perry v. Whitley County 4-H Clubs Inc.
92A03-1002-CT-101
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Whitely County 4-H Clubs on Perry’s negligence complaint for personal injuries suffered during a horse competition sponsored by the club. There is no genuine issue of material fact and the Indiana Equine Activity Statute bars her claim for injuries resulting from inherent risks of equine activities.

William R. Morell, III v. State of Indiana
06A04-0909-CR-531
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery by means of a deadly weapon as a Class C felony. The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion or commit reversible error by failing to swear the state’s witnesses and failing to allow questioning related to the alleged violations of the trial court’s separation order outside the presence of a jury. The cumulative effect of Morrell’s alleged errors don’t warrant reversal and there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Arvester Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1001-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony criminal confinement while armed with a deadly weapon and Williams’ aggregate sentence for criminal confinement as a Class B felony and possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as a Class B felony.

Brian A. Eby v. Jennifer L. Eby (NFP)
29A05-0909-CV-521
Civil. Reverses amended decree dissolving the Ebys’ marriage. Remands with instructions.

Matthew Donoho v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A05-0912-CR-717
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony theft and possession of marijuana, Class C felony burglary, and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.


Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted no transfers for the week ending Aug. 13.
 

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