ILNews

Opinions Dec. 28, 2011

December 28, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Metropolitan School District of Pike Township v. Indiana Department of Local Government Finance
49T10-1103-TA-21
Tax.  Reverses the Department of Local Government Finance’s final determination on the school district’s capital project fund level property tax rate for 2011. The DLGF did not properly apply the formula in Indiana Code 6-1.1-18-12(e) when it adjusted Pike Township school district’s capital projects fund levy property tax rate. The DLGF’s use of negative numbers in steps two and four of the formula for tax years 2007 through 2010 to produce a CPF levy property tax rate calculation for 2011 is wrong: it should have used zeros as it was statutorily required. Remands to the DLGF with instructions to recalculate the school district’s CPF levy property tax rates for 2007 through 2010 by using zero values instead of negative values in steps two and four of the formula contained in Indiana Code 6-1.1-18-12(e). These corrections will result in both a step one and a step seven value for 2011 of 0.3100.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

United States of America v. George Pabey
11-2046
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge James T. Moody.
Criminal. Affirms Pabey’s convictions of conspiring to embezzle government funds and embezzling government funds and sentence of 60 months in prison, along with a $60,000 fine, $14,000 in restitution, and three years of supervised release. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the jury to receive the conscious avoidance instruction. The sentence enhancements were appropriate and the District Court provided adequate support for its upward departure of his sentence.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Collier v. State of Indiana
49A04-1105-CR-229
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement. The trial court erred in denying Collier’s request for a mistrial pursuant to Batson. Remands for a new trial.

Kimberly Heaton v. State of Indiana
48A02-1104-CR-404
Criminal. Reverses revocation of probation and orders Heaton serve 18 months of her previously suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction. The trial court abused its discretion by using the incorrect legal standard in determining if Heaton committed another offense. Remands to the trial court to use the correct legal standard.

Adrian Collins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-523
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

Terrence Terren Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1104-CR-266
Criminal. Affirms Class A felony dealing cocaine conviction and habitual offender finding and remands with instructions to merge Walker’s Class A felony cocaine possession conviction into his cocaine dealing conviction.

Douglas L. Hayden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1105-PC-481
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Sheila Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1106-CR-238
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to dismiss charges of theft and fraud on a financial institution.

Kevin Backus v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1105-CR-276
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed upon revoking placement in community corrections.

Todd Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-474
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies criminal recklessness and strangulation.

D.E. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1106-JV-286
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class D felony receiving stolen property if committed by an adult.

A.T. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1010-CR-539
Criminal. Affirms that A.T.’s trial counsel was not ineffective.

Allison Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1106-CR-266
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.W.; N.W. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
48A02-1105-JT-416
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Kevin Hounshell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1105-CR-208
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator, operating a vehicle while intoxicated and a habitual substance offender enhancement.

The Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.H.H. & A.M.H., and Carrie Crawford v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
71A03-1107-JT-322
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Larry A. Rowe, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1106-CR-518
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary.

Joshua Baker v. Robert Brown (NFP)
68A05-1103-CT-122
Civil tort. Reverses denial of Baker’s motion to correct error and concluded the jury award to Baker was inadequate. Remands for further proceedings.

John T. Hamilton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A05-1103-CR-205
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for three counts of Class A felony child molesting and three counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Walter Angermeier and Wolflin, LLC v. Schultheis Insurance Agency Inc. and William Thompson, Agent (NFP)
65A01-1102-PL-68
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Thompson and Schultheis Insurance Agency on whether there was a breach of general duty of care.

John R. Crawford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
62A04-1102-PC-128
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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