Opinions Dec. 11, 2013

December 11, 2013
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
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for four counts of Class D felony theft.

James B. Studabaker, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to aiding in attempted murder as a Class A felony.

Douglas A. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Randy Winters v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  2. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  3. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  4. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?

  5. Research by William J Federer Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278): "Reverend Sir, I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of February last. I have read it with great attention and advantage. The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, and those means have been used by government..." John Marshall continued: "No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, and had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both. With very great respect, I am Sir, your Obedt., J. Marshall."