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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT