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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT