Monday, January 23, 2012
Ind. Decisions - Transfer list for week ending January 20, 2012
[Search all the Transfer Lists: The ILB feature, "Search the ILB Transfer Lists," allows you to do just that, back to Feb. 2004. Check it out. Read the instructions. Note that the search is now current through the Nov. 18, 2011 list.]
Here is the Clerk's transfer list for the week ending Friday, January 20, 2012. It is one page (and 10 cases) long.
Two transfers were granted last week:
- Rickey D. Whitaker v. Travis M. Becker was a March 29, 2011 COA opinion that concluded:
That said, we nevertheless find there are grounds that warrant the imposition of sanctions for the lack of proper diligence on the part of counsel for Whitaker. Collectively, we find that for counsel's failure to timely respond to letters of Becker's counsel regarding discovery matters, or to have requested an extension of time in which to respond to the request for production of discovery, rather than have counsel to seek production of discovery by court order, is unacceptable conduct by an officer of the court. We reverse the trial court's order dismissing the case and the awarding of $3,700.00, as a reasonable amount for attorney's fees, herein. We affirm the trial court's order finding that there are grounds for sanction and the imposition of reasonable attorney's fees for unacceptable conduct by Whitaker. However, as noted above, we find that the conduct complained of, without any valid explanation by counsel in the record to the contrary, could have been avoided except for the failure of Whitaker's counsel. As a result, we find that counsel for Whitaker should be and hereby is sanctioned and ordered to pay to counsel for Becker the sum of $625.00 as reasonable attorney's fees in this matter.
- A.T. v. State of Indiana was a July 29, 2011 COA opinion that concluded:
A.T. was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for committing an act that would be felony murder if committed by an adult, and the juvenile court ordered wardship of him to the Indiana Department of Correction pursuant to both indeterminate and determinate sentences. A.T. now appeals his determinate sentence, which requires him to remain in the care and custody of the DOC until his eighteenth birthday, arguing that the juvenile court failed to make a determination required by statute. We conclude that notwithstanding language in the determinate sentence statute, Indiana Code section 31-37-19-9, such a determination is not required. We also conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him to a determinate sentence. We therefore affirm the juvenile court.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 23, 2012 01:44 PM
Posted to Indiana Transfer Lists