ILNews

Opinions May 19, 2014

May 19, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was issued by the Indiana Tax Court after IL deadline Friday.
Van Buren Township, Madison County, Boone Township, Madison County, The Summitville Fire Protection Territory v. Department of Local Government Finance
49T10-1104-TA-27
Tax. Affirms Department of Local Government Finance denial of creation of the Summitville Fire Protection Territory because of defects in a legal advertisement to provide notice of a public hearing at which two townships proposed creation of the fire district and its authority to levy taxes. The court rejected arguments that each township published notice of the meeting on the same day in the same newspaper, so therefore a reasonable person would not have been misled by the defective legal notice.

May 19, 2014
Indiana Court of Appeals
M.S.D. of Martinsville v. Rebecca Jackson, individually and as parent and legal guardian of C.J., a Minor, and Kelli Dearth, Individually and as parent and legal guardian of B.K., a Minor
55A01-1304-CT-182
Civil tort. Affirms denial of motion for summary judgment filed by Metropolitan School District of Martinsville. The school district claimed it was immune from liability under the Indiana Torts claims Act after a shooting at Martinsville West Middle School injured two students. The Court of Appeals found the school district was not immune because the school principal’s work in developing the safety plan was not a discretionary function as exempted under the ITCA. Also the Court of Appeals ruled there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the school district breached its duty to protect C.J. and B.K. and whether C.J. was contributorily negligent.

William Hodapp, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
07A01-1307-CR-342
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony incest, Class C felony incest, Class D felony possession of child pornography and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Russell Lawless v. Leslie Lawless (NFP)
58A01-1308-DR-366
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution court’s deviation from the presumed equal division of marital property. Reverses the judgment of the dissolution court with respect to its determination of the amount of the marital debts and the value of the retirement plan. Remands with instructions for the dissolution court to recalculate the total amount of marital debts based upon the dates on which debts were incurred and on whose behalf, and assess the value of the retirement plan’s vested portion as of the date of the dissolution petition. The dissolution court will have discretion in determining the value of any appreciation in that portion of the retirement plan.

Michael Mason v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1310-CR-493
Criminal. Affirms conviction and 65-year sentence for murder.

Gary Sistrunk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1211-CR-567
Criminal. Affirms conviction of robbery as a Class B felony. Remands with instructions to enter conviction of criminal confinement as a Class D felony and to impose a sentence consistent therewith, to be served concurrently with his sentence for the robbery conviction. Judge Michael Barnes dissents in part, arguing the robbery and confinement were not separate criminal transgressions. Therefore, the confinement conviction should be vacated entirely.  

Gary Sistrunk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1210-CR-527
Criminal. Remands with instructions to vacate Sistrunk’s conviction of criminal confinement under Count II, and to enter his conviction of robbery under Count III as a Class C felony rather than a Class B felony. Also remands to enter Sistrunk’s convictions of criminal confinement under Counts IV and V as Class D felonies rather than Class B felonies. Finally, remands to revise the sentences to be consistent with the appropriate class level for the felonies and to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for the robbery conviction. Judge Michael Barnes dissents from the majority view that Counts III, IV and V must be reduced because Sistrunk did not repeatedly use the weapon during the commission of the crime.  

In re the Marriage of: William Adamson v. Pamela Adamson (NFP)
55A05-1310-DR-485
Domestic relation. Reverses and remands the Morgan Circuit Court’s denial of William Adamson’s motion to modify the physical custody of K.A., finding him in contempt of court and requiring him to pay Pamela Adamson’s attorney fees.

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


 

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