Opinions Dec. 30, 2010

December 30, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Wednesday.

Indiana Tax Court

AOL, LLC v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue (NFP)
Tax. Reverses Indiana Department of State Revenue’s final determinations, which denied AOL’s two claims for refund. Orders the department to refund to AOL the use taxes it paid during the tax periods at issue.

United Parcel Service Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue (NFP)
Tax. Grants UPS’ motion for summary judgment and denies the Indiana Department of State Revenue’s motion for summary judgment. Reverses the department’s denial of UPS’ claim for refund of corporate income tax for 2000 and its assessment of additional corporate income tax against UPS for 2001.

Today’s opinions

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Richmond State Hospital, et al. v. Paula Brattain, Francis Ernst, et al.
Civil. Denies the state’s petition and grants the employees’ petition to clarify the Court of Appeals’ instructions on remand for determining the merit employees’ damages. Concludes merit employees are entitled to back pay for the period beginning either 10 days before the filing of the July 29, 1993, complaint, or 10 days before the filing of their individual administrative grievances, whichever comes first, until the date that the state abolished the split class system. The trial court must determine whether the state terminated the split class system on Sept. 12 or Sept. 19, 1993.
Kathy Inman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Civil. Reverses trial court’s denial of Inman’s motion for prejudgment interest pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-51-4-5 in her action against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Remands with instructions that the trial court’s order be amended to require payment of prejudgment interest consistent with this opinion.

Christopher Jewell v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms convictions and aggregate 40-year term for six counts of sexual misconduct and child molesting. Jewell argued recorded statements admitted as evidence in this case were procured and admitted in violation of his federal and state constitutional rights to counsel. Court of Appeals concludes that Jewell’s statements were not obtained unconstitutionally because although Jewell had been charged and had hired counsel in an unrelated case, he had not been charged with the present crimes when the subject phone calls took place.

Paternity of R.M.; K.B. v. S.M.
Juvenile. Reverses and remands trial court’s order granting the motion filed by S.M. (mother) to dismiss K.B.'s (putative father) petition to establish paternity of S.M.’s child, R.M., based on the doctrine of laches. S.M. married R.M.’s presumptive father when S.M. was pregnant with R.M., who was born in 1996. The presumptive father died in 2006, and a home DNA test that year showed a 99.99 percent chance that K.B. is R.M.’s biological father.

Roscoe C. Fry II v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s denial of Fry’s motion to correct erroneous sentence. Remands with instructions to determine whether Fry has completed his sentence and probation and, if not, to clarify or modify his sentence as necessary so that the combined term of the executed portion of Fry’s sentence, including any time served prior to the date of the sentencing order, and his probation do not exceed one year.

K.A. v. State of Indiana
Juvenile. Reverses juvenile court’s modification of dispositional orders after K.A. allegedly violated his probation. K.A. contended the juvenile court violated his due process rights by modifying his disposition after a hearing at which the state presented no evidence of the alleged probation violation. Court of Appeals concludes that because the modification was predicated on the alleged probation violation, principles of fundamental fairness required the state to present evidence of the allegation.

Dwayne Rhoiney v. State of Indiana
Post-conviction. Reverses post-conviction court’s denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands for resentencing.

Hezekiah Colbert v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony attempted murder, Class A felony burglary, and finding that Colbert is a habitual offender.
Donnie R. Pierce v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Concludes the state presented sufficient evidence to convict Pierce of the charged offense, and that the mistake in the Abstract of Judgment should be corrected to enter the conviction of criminal mischief as a Class B misdemeanor.
Jeffrey Adams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of aiding in reckless homicide, criminal recklessness with a deadly weapon, and reckless driving.
Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of S.H., et al.; A.M. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, et al. (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.
Troy H. Worthington Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following a plea of guilty to criminal recklessness, a Class D felony.
Johnny N. Standberry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of theft, a Class D felony; and resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor.
Bernard Markey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
Paternity of C.B.; D.B. v. A.C. (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s order awarding A.C. (father) sole physical and legal custody of the parties’ minor child, C.B.
In the Matter of Z.T.; S.W. v. Marion Co. Dept. of Child Services, et al. (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s adjudication of Z.T. as a child in need of services.
Dione J. Osuna v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of possession of a handgun with an obliterated serial number, a Class C felony.
Kenneth Hopper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following judgment of conviction of guilty but mentally ill.
Chester L. Triplett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following a plea of guilty to dealing in cocaine, a Class B felony.
Opie W. Glass v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony burglary and two counts of Class C felony theft.

C.S. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, et al. (NFP)
Civil. Affirms the determination of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, which denied unemployment benefits to C.S.
Billy R. Case v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor and trial court’s restitution order.
Charles Hartsell Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
Wesley Crabtree v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order revoking probation and imposing the execution of Crabtree’s previously suspended sentence.
Kenny Hawkins Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for dealing in cocaine, a Class B felony.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.