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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT