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
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