Opinions July 22, 2010

Keywords neglect / Opinions
  • Print

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Daniel
A. Donald v. State of Indiana

23A04-0912-CR-685
Criminal. Reverses and remands trial court’s denial of Donald’s request for a competency evaluation prior to
his probation revocation hearing. Donald contended he was entitled to a competency evaluation pursuant to Indiana statute
and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals disagreed with Donald’s statutory
argument, but agreed the Due Process Clause may warrant a competency evaluation prior to a probation revocation hearing.

J.
John Marshall and Marjorie Marshall v. Erie Insurance Exchange a/s/o Cindy Cain

20A03-0908-CV-366
Civil. Granted a petition for rehearing and again affirmed the trial court opinion the Marshalls had a duty to exercise reasonable
care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to neighboring landowners arising from the condition of trees on their property
and further held they had breached that duty.

Trevor
Brieger v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-0907-CR-617
Criminal. Affirms convictions of rape and criminal deviate conduct as Class B felonies.

Termination
of Parent-Child Relationship of S.H.; A.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

76A05-1001-JT-42
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Bruce
Gunstra v. Salin Bank and Trust Company (NFP)

49A02-0912-CV-1274
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order granting the motion of Salin Bank and Trust Company for pre-judgment garnishment
of any distributions to Gunstra by two limited liability companies of which he is a member.

Anthony
Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)

48A02-0912-CR-1269
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of probation.

Indiana Tax Court
Indiana
Dept. of State Revenue, Inheritance Tax Division v. Estate of Katherine S. Boehle, Deceased

49T10-0811-TA-62
Tax. Affirms Marion Probate Court’s denial of the Indiana Department of State Revenue, Inheritance Tax Division’s
motion to correct error. The issue for review was whether the probate court erred in determining the estate’s inheritance
tax liability regarding a trust that the decedent set up to provide for her son who has Down Syndrome and resides in an assisted-living
facility.
 

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}