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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT