Opinions June 19, 2013

June 19, 2013
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
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
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

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

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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a license.

Jason E. Morales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)

Juvenile. Affirms parental participation order entered as part of the juvenile court’s dispositional order.

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

Jason Matlock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

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

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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Christopher A. Fischer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of suspended sentence.

Tyris D. Lapsley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)

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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.