ILNews

Opinions Dec. 30, 2013

December 30, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court was posted after IL deadline Friday:
Joseph & Jeanne Hutcherson v. Robin L. Ward, Hamilton County Assessor
49T10-1302-TA-10
Tax. Denies Hamilton County assessor’s motion to dismiss the Hutchersons’ claims and reverses the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s determination that the Hutchersons’ petitions to correct error for 2004 through 2007 were untimely. Finds the Petition to Correct Error Statute contains no provisions limiting the length of time a taxpayer has to file a petition. Remands for action consistent with the court’s opinion.

Monday's opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
Rico Nathaniel Morst v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1305-CR-226
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Morst’s probation.

Jeremiah Joseph Skirvin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1305-CR-232
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence of 55 years for two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor, as Class B felonies; one count of sexual misconduct with a minor, as a Class C felony; and being adjudicated as a habitual offender.

State of Indiana v. Tammy Sue Harper (NFP)
79A02-1303-CR-272
Criminal. Reverses order from the Tippecanoe Circuit Court modifying the sentence of Harper. Although the prosecuting attorney did not tell the trial court whether it approved of or objected to the sentence modification, the COA held that according to the “clear language” of Indiana Code 35-38-1-17, the prosecutor must approve of a sentence modification if the convicted person has served more than 365 days of his or her sentence.

George Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-326
Criminal. Affirms conviction of attempted murder as a Class A felony.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.M. (Minor Child) and D.D. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A05-1305-JT-258
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father D.D.’s parental rights.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court did not post any opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not submit any Indiana opinions by 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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT