ILNews

Opinions Dec. 30, 2010

December 30, 2010
Keywords
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)
49T10-0903-TA-7
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)
49T10-0704-TA-24
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.
49A02-0908-CV-718
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.
41A01-1005-CT-223
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
32A04-1003-CR-187
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.
45A04-1001-JP-14
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
30A01-1005-CR-244
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
49A02-1004-JV-527
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
49A05-1007-PC-482
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)
32A04-1004-CR-259
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)
49A05-1006-CR-347
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)
28A04-1006-CR-405
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)
49A02-1005-JT-623
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.
 
Troy H. Worthington Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1004-CR-223
Criminal. Affirms sentence following a plea of guilty to criminal recklessness, a Class D felony.
 
Johnny N. Standberry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1003-CR-508
Criminal. Affirms convictions of theft, a Class D felony; and resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor.
 
Bernard Markey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-PC-371
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 
Paternity of C.B.; D.B. v. A.C. (NFP)
29A05-1004-JP-321
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)
49A04-1004-JC-252
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s adjudication of Z.T. as a child in need of services.
 
Dione J. Osuna v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1005-CR-252
Criminal. Affirms conviction of possession of a handgun with an obliterated serial number, a Class C felony.
 
Kenneth Hopper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1006-CR-299
Criminal. Affirms sentence following judgment of conviction of guilty but mentally ill.
 
Chester L. Triplett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1001-CR-33
Criminal. Affirms sentence following a plea of guilty to dealing in cocaine, a Class B felony.
 
Opie W. Glass v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1005-CR-247
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)
93A02-1005-EX-537
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)
40A01-1004-CR-230
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)
20A04-1005-PC-359
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 
Wesley Crabtree v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-646
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)
84A01-1005-CR-268
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for dealing in cocaine, a Class B felony.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT