ILNews

Opinions Dec. 15, 2010

December 15, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Joshua G. Nicoson v. State of Indiana
32S04-1003-CR-150
Criminal. Affirms five-year sentence enhancement for the use of a firearm following Nicoson's convictions of criminal confinement with a deadly weapon as a Class B felony. Holds that adding these years is consistent both with the statutes in question and with the prohibition against double jeopardy.

Hamilton County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals & Hamilton County Assessor v. Oaken Bucket Partners, LLC
49S10-1003-TA-140
Tax. Reverses Tax Court’s decision which reversed the state board’s final determination affirming the denial of Oaken Bucket’s exemption application. Charging below-market rent for part of a building rented to a church is insufficient, standing alone, to justify a religious and charitable purpose property tax exemption. Instead, an owner of leased property must provide evidence that it possesses an exempt purpose separate and distinct from the exempt purpose of its lessee.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Henry C. Woodward v. Kimberlee A. Norton
71A03-1004-DR-225
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court finding that Special Judge Michael Gotsch had properly assumed jurisdiction over portions of the parties’ post-dissolution proceeding and finding Woodward in contempt of court for failing to comply with his child support and child support-related obligations. Woodward waived any objection regarding Special Judge Gotsch’s presence in the action.

Jose Reynosa v. Pedcor Construction Corp, et al.
49A02-1004-CT-434
Civil tort. Affirms order granting motion to dismiss with prejudice Reynosa’s complaint alleging negligence after he was injured in a construction accident in Tennessee. The trial court didn’t err in concluding that Reynosa is barred by Tennessee law from pursuing tort claims against Pedcor and other appellees.

James Norwood v. State of Indiana
49A04-1004-CR-212
Criminal. Reverses conviction of invasion of privacy as a Class A misdemeanor. Because the October 9, 2008, protective order expired on October 9, 2009, before the date of the alleged violation on December 26, 2009, the evidence is insufficient to sustain Norwood’s conviction.

Sharon Gill, on her own behalf and on behalf of the estate of Gale Gill, deceased v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc.
49A05-0912-CV-699
Civil. Affirms grant of Evansville Sheet Metal Works’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Sharon Gill’s complaint that Gale had been exposed to asbestos and died from an asbestos-related disease. Sharon brought her complaint outside the 10-year period stipulated in the Construction Statute of Repose so her claim is barred.

Joe Brewer v. State of Indiana
49A04-1004-CR-257
Criminal. Affirms conviction of sale of alcoholic beverages without a permit as a Class B misdemeanor. There is sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.

Rick Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
01A02-1002-CR-181
Criminal. Affirms convictions of 12 counts of Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal and one count of Class D felony improper disposal of an animal that has died.

Robert Murphy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A04-1003-CR-149
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, Class C felony robbery, and Class D felony criminal confinement.

Jose Carlos Arce v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1003-CR-155
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony robbery.

J.S.M. v. B.C.M. (NFP)
73A01-1003-DR-199
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of J.S.M.’s motion to modify custody.

James Alfred Peek, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1005-CR-576
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Peek serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction.

Tilonda Annae Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1002-CR-97
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

Terry A. Hodge v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1003-PC-146
Post conviction. Affirms denial of successive petition for post-conviction relief.

Colip-Riggin Corporation v. Rea Riggin & Sons, Inc., et al. (NFP)
18A04-1001-PL-13
Civil plenary. Affirms order granting Rea Riggin & Sons Inc.’s motion to dismiss a complaint alleging breach of contract.

Hummer Transportation, et al. v. Kimberly Spoa-Harty, et al. (NFP)
64A04-1002-CT-72
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict and judgment on the issue of damages in favor of Spoa-Harty and Harty in a personal injury action.

Justin Croucher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1006-CR-293
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and execution of nearly all of Croucher’s previously suspended sentence.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.D., et al.; T.D. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
71A03-1006-JT-347
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

M.H. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-1005-EX-496
Civil. Affirms decision that M.H. is not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Keith M. Ramsey, M.D. v. Shella Moore, et al. (NFP)
45A05-1005-CT-308
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Methodist Hospital’s motion to dismiss. Reverses denial of Dr. Ramsey’s motion to dismiss. Remands for further proceedings.

Jennifer L. Oder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1004-CR-188
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in a controlled substance, Class D felony possession of a controlled substance, and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Michael D. Robbins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A03-1006-CR-328
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to set aside plea agreement.

Charles E. Justise, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
77A01-1006-SC-352
Small claims. Affirms dismissal of complaint pursuant to I.C. Section 34-58-1-2.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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