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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. GMA Ranger, I, too, was warned against posting on how the Ind govt was attempting to destroy me professionally, and visit great costs and even destitution upon my family through their processing. No doubt the discussion in Indy today is likely how to ban me from this site (I expect I soon will be), just as they have banned me from emailing them at the BLE and Office of Bar Admission and ADA coordinator -- or, if that fails, whether they can file a complaint against my Kansas or SCOTUS law license for telling just how they operate and offering all of my files over the past decade to any of good will. The elitist insiders running the Hoosier social control mechanisms realize that knowledge and a unified response will be the end of their unjust reign. They fear exposure and accountability. I was banned for life from the Indiana bar for questioning government processing, that is, for being a whistleblower. Hoosier whistleblowers suffer much. I have no doubt, Gma Ranger, of what you report. They fear us, but realize as long as they keep us in fear of them, they can control us. Kinda like the kids' show Ants. Tyrannical governments the world over are being shaken by empowered citizens. Hoosiers dealing with The Capitol are often dealing with tyranny. Time to rise up: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/17/governments-struggling-to-retain-trust-of-citizens-global-survey-finds Back to the Founders! MAGA!

  3. Science is showing us the root of addiction is the lack of connection (with people). Criminalizing people who are lonely is a gross misinterpretation of what data is revealing and the approach we must take to combat mental health. Harsher crimes from drug dealers? where there is a demand there is a market, so make it legal and encourage these citizens to be functioning members of a society with competitive market opportunities. Legalize are "drugs" and quit wasting tax payer dollars on frivolous incarceration. The system is destroying lives and doing it in the name of privatized profits. To demonize loneliness and destroy lives in the land of opportunity is not freedom.

  4. Good luck, but as I have documented in three Hail Mary's to the SCOTUS, two applications (2007 & 2013),a civil rights suit and my own kicked-to-the-curb prayer for mandamus. all supported in detailed affidavits with full legal briefing (never considered), the ISC knows that the BLE operates "above the law" (i.e. unconstitutionally) and does not give a damn. In fact, that is how it was designed to control the lawyers. IU Law Prof. Patrick Baude blew the whistle while he was Ind Bar Examiner President back in 1993, even he was shut down. It is a masonic system that blackballs those whom the elite disdain. Here is the basic thrust:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackballing When I asked why I was initially denied, the court's foremost jester wrote back that the ten examiners all voted, and I did not gain the needed votes for approval (whatever that is, probably ten) and thus I was not in .. nothing written, no explanation, just go away or appeal ... and if you appeal and disagree with their system .. proof positive you lack character and fitness. It is both arbitrary and capricious by its very design. The Hoosier legal elites are monarchical minded, and rejected me for life for ostensibly failing to sufficiently respect man's law (due to my stated regard for God's law -- which they questioned me on, after remanding me for a psych eval for holding such Higher Law beliefs) while breaking their own rules, breaking federal statutory law, and violating federal and state constitutions and ancient due process standards .. all well documented as they "processed me" over many years.... yes years ... they have few standards that they will not bulldoze to get to the end desired. And the ISC knows this, and they keep it in play. So sad, And the fed courts refuse to do anything, and so the blackballing show goes on ... it is the Indy way. My final experience here: https://www.scribd.com/document/299040062/Brown-ind-Bar-memo-Pet-cert I will open my files to anyone interested in seeing justice dawn over Indy. My cases are an open book, just ask.

  5. Looks like 2017 will be another notable year for these cases. I have a Grandson involved in a CHINS case that should never have been. He and the whole family are being held hostage by CPS and the 'current mood' of the CPS caseworker. If the parents disagree with a decision, they are penalized. I, along with other were posting on Jasper County Online News, but all were quickly warned to remove posts. I totally understand that some children need these services, but in this case, it was mistakes, covered by coorcement of father to sign papers, lies and cover-ups. The most astonishing thing was within 2 weeks of this child being placed with CPS, a private adoption agency was asking questions regarding child's family in the area. I believe a photo that was taken by CPS manager at the very onset during the CHINS co-ocerment and the intent was to make money. I have even been warned not to post or speak to anyone regarding this case. Parents have completed all requirements, met foster parents, get visitation 2 days a week, and still the next court date is all the way out till May 1, which gives them(CPS) plenty of to time make further demands (which I expect) No trust of these 'seasoned' case managers, as I have already learned too much about their dirty little tricks. If they discover that I have posted here, I expect they will not be happy and penalized parents again. Still a Hostage.

ADVERTISEMENT