ILNews

Opinions May 28, 2013

May 28, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday:
Dora Brown, Ben Kindle, and Sonjia Graf v. Department of Local Government Finance
49T10-0912-TA-83
Tax. Rules the DLGF was not required to perform a “needs analysis” set forth in I.C. 36-6-6-14(d) before it approved the Gregg Township Board of Morgan County’s loan for a new fire truck under I.C. 36-8-13. The DLGF’s final determination is supported by the evidence. Remands for the DLGF to address whether its final determination violates the Indiana Constitution.

Monday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
David Streeter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
44A04-1110-PC-640
Post conviction. Affirms denial of amended petition for post-conviction relief.

In Re the Matter of L.P., Alleged Child In Need of Services, S.P. and M.H. v. Indiana Department of Child Services and Miami County CASA Program (NFP)
52A02-1212-JC-1028
Juvenile. Affirms determination that L.P. is a child in need of services.

In Re The Matter of: D.H. and D.H., Children in Need of Services; D.H. (Father) v. Marion County Dept. of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1210-JC-827
Juvenile. Affirms determination that D.L.H. and D.H. are children in need of services.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.B. (Minor Child) and A.B. (Mother) and D.B. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
53A01-1208-JT-341
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Robert L. Murray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1205-PC-274
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Kevin Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1209-CR-761
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder.

Samuel Bradley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A05-1211-CR-647
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony attempted deviate conduct.

Dennis Powell & Barbara Powell v. Porter Hospital, LLC d/b/a Porter Hospital (NFP)
64A03-1210-CT-413
Civil tort. Reverses dismissal of the Powells’ complaint against Porter Hospital and remands for further proceedings.

Angel L. Diaz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A04-1212-CR-660
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Class D felony pointing a firearm, and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Louis Moreira v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1208-CR-351
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class B felony burglary.

D.P. and G.P. v. J.H. and T.H. (NFP)
71A05-1210-MI-618
Miscellaneous. Remands with instructions to conduct a new hearing on the foster parents’ motion to tax fees and costs. Declines to address the grandparents’ arguments related to the adoption of J.P. by the foster parents and denies the foster parents’ request for appellate attorney fees.

Richard B.E. Spoon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A04-1205-CR-253
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony child molesting.

Jacob Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1211-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms 35-year sentence for Class A felony child molesting and the calculation of pre-sentencing credit time.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT