ILNews

Opinions Aug. 22, 2011

August 22, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday:
Indiana Tax Court
Virginia Garwood, et al. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
82T10-0906-TA-29
Tax. Grants summary judgment for the Garwoods and denies the Indiana Department of State Revenue’s motion for summary judgment. Holds that the 16 jeopardy assessments issued against the Garwoods for all or part of the 2007 through 2009 tax years are void as a matter of law. The department’s use of the jeopardy assessment procedure against the Garwoods exceeded statutory authority. Orders the department to void all of the jeopardy assessments and take any other actions necessary to give full effect to the order.

Today’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions from Indiana courts at IL deadline.


Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Smith Barney, et al. v. StoneMor Operating LLC, et al.
41A04-1103-MF-96
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms denial of Barney’s motion to compel arbitration. As a matter of law, Independence Trust was not a “successor in interest” to either of the prior trustees and therefore isn’t bound by the arbitration clause in the account agreements. Consequently, there is no basis for compelling StoneMor to arbitrate its claims.

Dennis Perry v. State of Indiana
49A05-1012-CR-774
Criminal. Perry’s ex-girlfriend’s material statements detailing her physical attack and identifying her attacker were admissible pursuant to the medical diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule. Her statements were nontestimonial and did not implicate Perry’s confrontation rights. The trial court erred by admitting prior misconduct evidence involving Perry and the victim and this error warrants reversal and a new trial.  

Robbie J. Bex v. State of Indiana
53A01-1008-CR-422
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated endangering a person. There is no federal constitutional bar to a defendant’s waiver of the presence and participation of one of the six jurors in a criminal trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the public defender fee as a condition of probation without holding a hearing on Bex’s ability to pay because the fees weren’t due until after she completed the executed portion of her sentence. Senior Judge Sullivan dissents in part.

Marc Van Rowland v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1010-CR-1161
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony attempted burglary, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and an attendant adjudication of being a habitual offender.

Garry Coleman v. Department of Local Government Finance (NFP)
49A02-1101-MI-40
Miscellaneous. Affirms dismissal of wrongful termination complaint.

A.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-JV-142
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court accepted five cases on transfer and denied 37 for the week ending Aug. 19, 2011.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT