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. Welcome to Hendricks County where local and state statutes (especially Indiana Class C misdemeanors) are given a higher consideration than Federal statues and active duty military call-ups.

  2. If real money was spent on this study, what a shame. And if some air-head professor tries to use this to advance a career, pity the poor student. I am approaching a time that i (and others around me) should be vigilant. I don't think I'm anywhere near there yet, but seeing the subject I was looking forward to something I might use to look for some benchmarks. When finally finding my way to the hidden questionnaire all I could say to myself was...what a joke. Those are open and obvious signs of any impaired lawyer (or non-lawyer, for that matter), And if one needs a checklist to discern those tell-tale signs of impairment at any age, one shouldn't be practicing law. Another reason I don't regret dropping my ABA membership some number of years ago.

  3. The case should have been spiked. Give the kid a break. He can serve and maybe die for Uncle Sam and can't have a drink? Wow. And they won't even let him defend himself. What a gross lack of prosecutorial oversight and judgment. WOW

  4. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  5. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

ADVERTISEMENT