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

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