ILNews

Opinions Dec. 11, 2013

December 11, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Roderick E. Kellam v. Fountain County Assessor
49T10-1211-TA-78
Tax. Reverses the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s final determination denying a homestead standard deduction on Kellam’s Fountain County property for the 2010 tax year. The decision is unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence and the conclusion that the property was not his principal place of residence is contrary to law.  

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Carol Sparks Drake v. Thomas A. Dickey, Craig Anderson, Charles E. Podell, and Duke Realty Corporation
29A02-1302-CT-152
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Duke Realty on Drake’s claim that it intentionally interfered with her partnership agreement with the law firm. The trial court erred when it concluded that Drake had failed to present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Duke Realty intentionally induced Parr Richey to terminate Drake as a partner. Remands for further proceedings.

John Kader v. State of Indiana, Department of Correction, and The Geo Group, Inc.
33A01-1302-CT-72
Civil tort. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands with instructions. The trial court abused its discretion when it struck the entirety of Holland’s affidavit, which Kader designated as evidentiary material in response to the motion for summary judgment. The trial court erred when it entered summary judgment against Kader regarding his claims against GEO, except as to Kader’s claim that GEO was negligent in its procurement and supervision of his follow-up medical care. The trial court also erred when it entered summary judgment against Kader on his claim of negligent medical treatment as it pertained to the state and the Department of Correction.

In Re the Paternity of: L.M.J. b/n/f, D.R.D. v C.A.J. (NFP)
34A02-1305-JP-458
Juvenile. Affirms denial of mother’s request for summary judgment on motion for a rule to show cause that father had failed to pay child support beyond his weekly obligation pursuant to the terms of the 1998 order regarding support.

Kelli Alvarez, f/k/a Kelli Galanos v. Horizon Bank, N.A. (NFP)
46A03-1304-CC-155
Civil collection. Dismisses appeal of order denying Alvarez’s motion to correct error challenging the entry of summary judgment in favor of Horizon Bank on a promissory note.

Willie Huguley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1305-CR-443
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting, sexual intercourse; Class A felony child molesting, deviate sexual conduct; and Class C felony child molesting, fondling.

Joseph A. Harrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A02-1307-CR-576
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

L.M. Zeller, individually, and d/b/a Zeller Elevator Company v. Indiana Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission (NFP)
82A01-1303-PL-115
Civil plenary. Affirms order affirming the decision of the Indiana Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission regarding the servicing of elevators.

Kenneth Morton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A05-1305-CR-222
Criminal. Affirms sentence for four counts of Class D felony theft.

James B. Studabaker, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A04-1303-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Julie Marie King v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A03-1305-CR-186
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to aiding in attempted murder as a Class A felony.

Douglas A. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1304-CR-154
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Randy Winters v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-1302-CR-59
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony robbery.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT