ILNews

Opinions Dec. 7, 2010

December 7, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after yesterday’s deadline:

Indiana Tax Court

Shelby County Assessor v. Shelby’s Landing-II, LP (NFP)
49T10-1004-TA-17
Tax. Affirms the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review that valued Shelby’s Landing - II LP’s two apartment complexes at $3,742,500 for the 2006 tax year (the year at issue). At issue was whether the Indiana Board’s final determination was arbitrary and capricious or not supported by substantial evidence.

Today’s opinions

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

M.S. v. C.S.
03A01-1003-DR-140
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order to vacate a previous order granting M.S. joint legal custody of and parenting time with S.S., a child born to C.S., M.S.’s former domestic partner of more than 10 years. M.S. appealed and raised three issues: whether the trial court erred in vacating its prior custody and visitation order; whether the trial court abused its discretion by modifying custody of S.S. without a petition to modify or a showing of a substantial change in circumstances; and whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying M.S. parenting time.

Nikki Brindle v. Patrick J. Arata
02A05-1004-SC-239
Small claims. Reverses and remands trial court’s determination that certain funds in Brindle’s bank account that were from a student loan were subject to attachment to satisfy a judgment in favor of appellee-plaintiff Patrick Arata. Appellate court concludes that student loan funds at issue here may not be attached to satisfy a judgment.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.S.O.; S.O. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
64A05-1005-JT-304
Juvenile. Reverses trial court’s involuntary termination of father’s parental rights to his minor child. Majority of appellate court panel concluded the trial court’s order violated the father’s due process rights because the Porter County division of IDCS was aware of his whereabouts, even though the father was in jail and the child had been removed from the mother’s care.

Donald E. Williams v. State of Indiana
49A05-1004-CR-224
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in home detention. Williams raised one issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a urinalysis report and a home detention monitoring report into evidence.

Paul Schulz v. Karen Spoor (NFP)
64A03-1005-PO-316
Protective order. Affirms order of protection against Schulz that Spoor filed against him.

Brian K. Ruby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1007-CR-730
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing methamphetamine, Class A felony dealing cocaine, Class B felony dealing a schedule III controlled substance, Class C felony dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance, and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Billy J. Lemond v. Allan Finnan, et al. (NFP)
48A02-1005-SC-595
Small claims. Reverses and remands small claims court’s dismissal of Lemond’s claim against the Pendleton Correctional Facility. The appellate court concluded Lemond had a sufficient claim against PCF, but not the individual employees.

Erica Williams-Darden v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A03-1005-CR-268
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed after Williams-Darden pleaded guilty to theft, a class D felony; and battery, a class B misdemeanor.

State of Indiana Department of Family Services, et al. v. J.D., et al. (NFP)
82A04-1006-CT-364
Civil tort. Reverses and remands trial court’s order denying Vanderburgh County Prosecutor’s Office’s motion to set aside the default judgment entered in favor of the appellees-plaintiffs on the appellees’ complaint against VCPO and other defendants. Concludes VCPO met its burden under Trial Rule 60.

Scott R. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1006-PC-668
Post-conviction. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Christopher Edwards v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1002-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony causing death while operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent greater than 0.08 and Class B felony causing death while operating a motor vehicle with cocaine in the blood.

Jose Caballero v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-367
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony criminal confinement, Class C felony battery, and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Carol Long-Switalski v. Wendeline Switalski (NFP)
71A05-1004-CC-270
Civil. Reverses and remands for recalculation of Wendeline’s damages to exclude charges from restaurants, gas stations, and convenience stores, which he authorized Carol to make on his credit card.

Ronald Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-494
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony prisoner possessing dangerous device or material.

Rick J. Deeter v. Haynes International, Inc. (NFP)
34A02-1004-PL-395
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order granting the motion to dismiss filed by Haynes International, Inc.

Emilio Mitchell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-480
Criminal. Affirms conviction of resisting law enforcement, a Class D felony.

Elbert Wright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-440
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class D felony.

Jeffrey Leonard McCrory v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1003-CR-177
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for burglary, a Class B felony; and theft, a Class D felony.

Porter County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Lamar Advertising Northwest Indiana (NFP)
64A04-1003-PL-186
Civil. Affirms trial court’s approval of an improvement location permit sought by Lamar Advertising Northwest Indiana.

Keith Billingsley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1003-PC-207
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Charles J. Gooch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-382
Criminal. Affirms conviction of dealing in a controlled substance, a Class B felony.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before 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. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  2. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  3. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  4. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  5. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

ADVERTISEMENT