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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT