ILNews

Opinions Dec. 29, 2011

December 29, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
Lyle Lacey v. Indiana Department of Revenue
49T10-1102-TA-7
Tax. Orders Lacey to pay attorney fees to the Indiana Department of Revenue, holding that his repeated claims that his income is not subject to Indiana adjusted gross income tax are frivolous.

Thursday's opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Supreme Court
State of Indiana v. Economic Freedom Fund, FreeEats.com, Inc., Meridian Pacific, Inc., and John Does 3-10
07S00-1008-MI-411
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s grant of preliminary injunction in favor of FreeEats, holding that the court erred in finding FreeEats had a reasonable likelihood of success on its claim that the live-operator provision of the Indiana Autodialer Law violates Article 1, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution. Remands for further proceedings. Justice Frank Sullivan dissented, writing that the application of the live-operator requirement in the present case imposes a material burden on political speech in violation of Art. I, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution, and that the application of this requirement violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David L. Johnson, Jr. v. State of Indiana
82A01-1103-CR-130
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony neglect of a dependent, holding that Johnson failed to prove he should have been charged with a lesser offense. Holds that Johnson also failed to prove that he was a victim of actual prosecutorial vindictiveness.

Natalia Robertson, Personal Rep. of the Estate of John Lee Cunningham, III v. Gene B. Glick Co., Inc., The Woods of Eagle Creek, Briarwood Apartments, LP, and Briarwood Apartments II, LP
49A05-1104-CT-158
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s dismissal of Robertson’s claim as untimely. Holds that in order for tolling statute to apply and allow the claim to be filed after the two-year statute of limitations, the person filing the claim – not the beneficiary of the claim – is the party that would need to have a disability.

In the Matter of the Supervised Estate of Leah Yeley, Deceased; Larry Yeley v. Timothy Purdom, as Personal Rep. of the Estate of Leah Yeley
27A02-1103-ES-456
Estate, supervised. Reverses court’s determination that Larry Yeley should be subject to a settlement agreement reached by his siblings, holding that the agreement was not affirming instructions in either of Leah Yeley’s contested wills, but was agreeing only to independent distribution of the estate. Remands for proceedings consistent with opinion.

Mario A. Allen v. State of Indiana
46A04-1106-PC-353
Post conviction. Affirms post-conviction court’s conclusion that Allen was denied the assistance of appellate counsel and remands with instructions that the trial court appoint Allen counsel to represent him on appeal.

Moorehead Electric Co. v. Jerry Payne
93A02-1105-EX-457
Civil. Affirms Worker’s Compensation Board’s award of benefits to Payne for an injury sustained outside of the workplace but that arose from a prior compensable injury. Holds that because the original injury arose out of Payne’s employment, and there was no intervening, causal act of negligence, the subsequent injury is a consequence which flows from it, and therefore, likewise arises out of his employment with Moorehead Electric.

D.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1106-JV-338
Juvenile. Affirms court’s adjudication of D.B. as a delinquent for carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

John W. Sawyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1105-CR-454
Criminal. Vacates conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, citing double jeopardy principles, but affirms convictions of Class C felony battery, Class D felony strangulation, Class D felony intimidation and Class A misdemeanor cruelty to a law enforcement animal.

Troy Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1107-CR-375
Criminal. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of Howard’s request for educational credit time.

Miguel Esqueda v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1105-CR-263
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of Esqueda’s motion for mistrial.

Fred E. Gordon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1106-PC-281
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

William Pond v. Paul B. McNellis and Linda Peters Chrzan (NFP)
90A05-1101-PL-14
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s determination that Pond was not entitled to further restitution.

Michael Loverde v. Thomas Kuehl (NFP)
64A03-1107-PO-327
Protective order. Reverses protective order granted against Loverde, holding that a civil protection order is not available for non-family members who cannot demonstrate stalking or a sex offense.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of K.N., B.N., R.N., and G.N.; and C.N. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, Child Advocates Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1106-JT-530
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

Robert Strickland v. State of Indiana (NFP)
67A01-1106-CR-283
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s judgment that Strickland violated terms of his probation and should serve the remainder of his sentence, holding evidence was not sufficient. Remands to the trial court to reinstate probation.

Johnathon R. Aslinger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1105-CR-670
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Summer Belli-McIntyre v. State of Indiana (NFP)
83A01-1101-CR-5
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony neglect of a dependent.

Carrie Joan Garrett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1106-CR-293
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony failing to stop after an accident.

Glenn D. Odom, II v. Indiana Dept. of Correction (NFP)
77A05-1103-SC-161
Small claims. Affirms court’s judgment in favor of the Indiana Department of Correction which alleged the DOC discarded Odom’s property.  

J.M. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1106-EX-560
Civil. Affirms Indiana Department of Workforce Development’s determination that J.M. was fired for just cause and is therefore not entitled to unemployment compensation.

Michael W. Krauskopf, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1107-CR-414
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.

Thomas J. Tarrance v. State of Indiana (NFP)
60A04-1106-CR-358
Criminal. Reverses sentence for Class B felony robbery, holding that in light of the nature of the offense and Tarrance’s character, the sentence is inappropriate. Remands to the trial court to enter a revised sentence of 14 years, with four suspended to probation.

Maria Espinoza v. Rosa Martinez, Mi Familia Tienda, and Nassirou Gado (NFP)
49A02-1104-CT-373
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s grant of appellees’ motion to dismiss.

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT