ILNews

Opinions, Oct. 3, 2013

October 3, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Opinions, Oct. 3, 2013

Indiana Tax Court

Orange County Assessor v. James E. Stout
49T10-1112-TA-94
Property tax. Affirms the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review that the Orange County Assessor failed the meet the burden of proving that Stout’s land assessment was proper. Finds although the Indiana Board applied a 2011 statute to a 2010 appeal, the 2011 law was not new but a clarification of the original 2009 statute which shifted the burden to the assessor. Also rules the assessor failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that Stout was not using his 8.12 acre property for an agriculture purpose.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Koch Development Corporation and Daniel L. Koch v. Lori A. Koch, as Personal Representative of the Estate of William A. Koch, Jr., Deceased
82A04-1212-PL-612
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court’s judgment that Lori A. Koch, as personal representative of the Estate of William A. Koch Jr., does not have to sell the estate’s share in Holiday World and Splashin’ Safari to Koch Development Corp. and Daniel L. Koch. Finds the evidence supports the conclusion that Daniel Koch and KDC materially breached the terms of the Share Purchase and Security Agreement by offering a per-share price that was significantly less than the price agreed to by the parties. Also rules that this material breach relieves the estate from its obligation sell its shares.  

Katherine Chaffins and Roger Chaffins Sr. v. Clint Kauffman, M.D.; Family and Women's Health Services; and Pulaski County Memorial Hospital
66A04-1302-CT-85
Civil tort. Reverses grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Clint Kauffman and Family and Women’s Health Services, with the majority finding that a material issue of genuine fact exists as to the Chaffinses’ claim that defendants’ alleged negligence after a colonoscopy resulted in 12 hours of prolonged pain before the subsequent diagnosis of a perforated colon. Judge Elaine Brown dissented and would have affirmed summary judgment because no evidence shows that the defendants deviated from the standard of care appropriate in such a case.

Geroge A. Nunley v. State of Indiana
10A04-1212-CR-630
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony robbery but reverses habitual offender finding because it was based on a complaint amended after a jury had been empaneled, prejudicing Nunley’s substantial rights. The panel concluded that no part of I.C. 35-34-1-5 allowed the amendment that the state proposed in this case. The matter was remanded to removing the 12-year enhancement to an eight-year sentence on the robbery conviction.

Shayla Bowling v. State of Indiana
92A03-1212-CR-553
Criminal. Affirms a conviction of Class D felony domestic violence, holding that a jury properly determined that Bowling was “living as if a spouse” with the victim with whom she was involved in a romantic relationship despite being married to another man. The court rejected Bowling’s argument that she could not be living as if a spouse with another person while she was married because to do so would be bigamy and that applying the domestic violence statute in her case could arguably broaden the scope of the law.

Jose Garcia v. G. Wm. Walker Construction (NFP)
93A02-1305-EX-437
Civil. Affirms the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board’s ruling that Garcia’s injury did not arise from his employment.

Elbert G. Elliott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1212-CR-659
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Elliott’s probation based on drug use and willful failure to pay restitution.

Milton L. Medsker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1303-PC-203
Post conviction. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of Medsker’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Marlen Hernandez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1304-CR-181
Criminal. Affirms conviction for criminal recklessness, a Class D felony.

Richard Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1212-CR-571
Criminal. Affirms Green’s conviction for armed robbery, a Class B felony, and his adjudication as a habitual offender.

Robert Klinglesmith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1303-CR-116
Criminal. Affirms in part and reverses in part. Concludes that Klinglesmith did not suffer fundamental error due to the cumulative effect of allegedly erroneously admitted evidence but that one of his two convictions for Class B felony criminal deviate conduct must be vacated due to double jeopardy concerns.  

Matthew P. Thrall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
56A05-1304-CR-159
Criminal. Affirms 13-year sentence for pleading guilty to one count of Class B felony rape.

Priority Press, Inc. v. Media Methodology (NFP)
29A02-1303-SC-278
Small claims. Affirms judgment in favor of Media Methodology.

Rasheen Middleton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1301-CR-8
Criminal. Affirms conviction and 12-year sentence, with two years suspended, for one count of Class B felony unlawful possession of firearm by a serious violent felon.

Dennis Tiller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1211-CR-928
Criminal. Affirms convictions for one count child molesting as a Class A felony and one count child molesting as a Class C felony. Concludes while the prosecutor’s comments may have been more narrowly construed, they did not prevent Tiller from receiving a fair trial.

Indiana Supreme Court released no opinions before IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals released no Indiana opinions before IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT