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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT