ILNews

Opinions Oct. 31, 2012

October 31, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Wendt, LLP v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
02T10-0701-TA-2
Tax. Affirms the department’s determination that the items predominately used by Wendt for estimate preparations, machinery reassembly and lawn care are not entitled to the public transportation exemption. Reverses all of the department’s remaining determinations because those items are necessary and integral to Wendt’s public transportation process. Remands and orders the department to make the necessary determinations in accordance with the opinion.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
Robertson Fowler v. State of Indiana
49A05-1202-PC-68
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Fowler received a benefit at the time he entered into his plea bargain, so he may not now challenge the sentence as illegal.

Larry Michael Caraway v. State of Indiana
47A04-1205-CR-265
Criminal. Affirms sentence for murder following open guilty plea. His sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

Kevin M. Clark v. State of Indiana
20A05-1202-CR-62
Criminal. Affirms admission of evidence found in his bag and trunk of his car, and the admission of police testimony regarding the conversion of pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine. The police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the men and because Clark admitted his bag contained marijuana, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting items found in his bag. The police trooper’s testimony regarding conversion was rationally based on her perceptions and was helpful to the determination of facts at issue in the case.

Gaude L. Hughes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

Billy Fox, Jr. v. Rogers Building Ventures, et al. (NFP)
53A05-1203-CP-160
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of objection to personal jurisdiction and the motion to set aside judgment.

Joshua D. Hughes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1112-PC-591
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Ind. Trial Rule 72(E) request for an extension of time within which to appeal the denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

C.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1203-JV-232
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as delinquent for what would be Class C felony battery if committed by an adult.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of D.C.: L.B. (father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1203-JT-114
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.  

Troy and Mary Hill v. Beta Steel Corporation (NFP)
93A02-1203-EX-215
Agency appeal. Affirms denial of death benefits.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.A.M., and B.J. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1201-JT-42
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Lukuman Aderbigbe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1203-PC-219
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Kenneth W. Gilland v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1203-CR-143
Criminal. Reverses order that Gilland pay more than $20,000 in restitution. Because Gilland agreed to pay nearly $10,000 in restitution in a plea agreement, he may not challenge the portion that relates to the loss in value of a motorcycle on appeal. Remands with instructions to reduce the restitution order to $9,949.62.

James R. Ferguson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1110-CR-968
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Gregory J. Schnelker v. Indiana Department of Insurance Patient's Compensation Authority (NFP)
49A02-1201-CT-33
Civil tort. Affirms order which declined to award Schnelker damages for loss of wages and capacity and for increased risk of future harm.

Timothy A. Stevens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1111-PC-525
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Steven Hook, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1204-CR-203
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon.

Mark Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1201-CR-4
Criminal. Grants rehearing and affirms original opinion in all respects, which affirmed the order Williams serve his entire sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

Frederic Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1110-PC-621
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.D.: W.H. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1203-JT-201
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.
 

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