ILNews

Opinions June 19, 2013

June 19, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court decision was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Vodafone Americas Inc. and Vodafone Holdings LLC v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
49T10-1002-TA-7
Tax. Denies Vodafone’s motion for summary judgment for refund of adjusted gross income tax paid during taxable years ending March 31, 2005 – March 31, 2008. The income it received as a partner of Cellco had the character of operational income and was therefore not income in the form of “dividends from investments” under I.C. 6-3-2-2.2(g).

Indiana Court of Appeals
Revas Spencer v. Tiffany Spencer
36A04-1211-PO-605
Protective order. Reverses denial of the agreed order dismissing an order of protection submitted by the Spencers to the trial court. Since the word “shall” appears in the statute regarding the trial court’s actions when the petitioner files for the dismissal of a protection order, the trial court didn’t have the discretion to deny the parties’ request to dismiss the protective order.

Floyd Weddle v. State of Indiana

73A01-1209-CR-452
Criminal. Affirms admission of certain evidence after police officers conducted a protective sweep of Weddle’s residence and subsequently searched the premises following the issuance of a search warrant. The scope of the protective sweep was reasonable because officers heard additional movement after taking Weddle into custody and did locate other people in the house.

Josiah Williams v. State of Indiana

49A02-1211-CR-878
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. The evidence of probative value exists from which the trial court as the trier of fact could have found Williams guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of public intoxication.

Natalie Rouse v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1212-CR-550
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a license.

Jason E. Morales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1211-PC-530
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In the Matter of: M.W., Minor Child, A Child in Need of Services, E.W., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

49A05-1210-JC-500
Juvenile. Affirms parental participation order entered as part of the juvenile court’s dispositional order.

Corey L. Mosley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-PC-249
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jason Matlock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1209-CR-742
Criminal. Affirms admission of evidence police obtained pursuant to a traffic stop.

Wellpoint, Inc. (f/k/a Anthem, Inc.) and Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa; AIG Europe (U.K.) Limited, New Hampshire Ins. Co., et al. (NFP)
49A05-1202-PL-92
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Wellpoint’s insurers, who denied coverage for Wellpoint’s defense and settlement of a number of lawsuits against it.

King of Clean Automotive, LLC, v. New Truck Alternative, LLC. (NFP)
29A02-1205-MI-414
Miscellaneous. Affirms the ruling that King of Clean’s mechanic’s liens were not valid and the grant of New Truck Alternative’s petition for replevin.

Erica Battle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1211-CR-924
Criminal. Remands with instructions that the trial court vacate two of the three Class C forgery convictions and affirms in all other respects.

Christopher Baxter v. State of Indiana (NFP)

22A01-1210-CR-447
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction and reverses Baxter’s 55-year sentence and remands with instructions to sentence him under the correct statute.

Anthony Houston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1208-PC-432
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In Re: The Marriage of: Caleb E. Campbell v. Anna P. Campbell (NFP)

71A03-1210-DR-420
Domestic relation. Reverses order that the paternal and maternal grandparents participate in family therapy and the court orders with respect to the division of the marital estate to the extent it failed to allocate Pell grants to Caleb Campbell. Remands for modification of the decree of dissolution consistent with this opinion and affirms in all other respects.

In Re: The Marriage of: Bernard Lee, Jr. v. Jackie Smith (NFP)
30A01-1208-DR-380
Domestic relation. Affirms the court’s custody determination for K.L., reverses the court’s order regarding property division and remands for further proceedings.

Bernard L. Strickland v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1301-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony burglary and Class A misdemeanors resisting law enforcement and possession of paraphernalia and for being a habitual offender.

Daniel R. Fuquay, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1208-CR-360
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Christopher A. Fischer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1207-CR-382
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony burglary and Class D felonies receiving stolen property and theft.

Wade R. Meisberger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A05-1208-CR-452
Criminal. Affirms revocation of suspended sentence.

Tyris D. Lapsley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1211-CR-477
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

James H. Suttle, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1211-PC-906
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT