ILNews

Opinions, Dec. 8, 2010

December 8, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline:
Indiana Tax Court

Indiana Dept. of Revenue v. Estate of Bernard A. Daugherty

49T10-0909-TA-49
Tax. Affirms finding by probate court that 45 IAC 4.1-3-11 is valid and the denial of the estate’s motion to dismiss. The probate court didn’t err in concluding the estate’s counterclaim was time-barred pursuant to I.C. Section 6-4.1-7-1 and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the propriety of the 10 additional farming-related deductions. Reverses finding that all 12 of the estate’s farming-related expenses were deductible. Remands for calculation of the proper amount of inheritance tax and interest due from the estate, consistent with the opinion.

Today’s opinions

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Phillip Forman v. Wayne Penn, et al.
33A01-1007-CT-343
Civil tort. Dismisses appeal because it isn’t certified for interlocutory appeal or authorized as an appeal from a final judgment pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 54(B).

Kerry Reinhart v. Kelli Reinhart
36A01-1006-DR-276
Domestic relation. Affirms order denying Kerry’s motion to modify child support ordered pursuant to a decree dissolving the Reinharts’ marriage. Because Kerry agreed to a support amount in excess of the guideline amount, he is estopped to rely on that differential under I.C. Section 31-16-8-1(2) as the sole ground for modifying child support. He may petition to modify child support if he can show a substantial and continuing change in circumstances as to warrant modification.

Dustin Haynes v. State of Indiana
27A02-1003-CR-311
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Haynes’ motion to suppress evidence because the police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Haynes and therefore the stop was legal.  

Andre Goodman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-402
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony criminal recklessness; Class A misdemeanors interference with the reporting of a crime, possession of paraphernalia, and resisting law enforcement; and the finding Goodman is a habitual offender.

Dillion Yakym v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1005-CR-347
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony rape and remands for the imposition of consecutive sentences.

Tamra A. Thompson v. Duane Thompson (NFP)
64A03-1003-DR-240
Domestic relation. Affirms decree dissolving marriage.

Paul Fox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1003-CR-193
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Steven Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-206
Criminal. Affirms admission of evidence relating to a statement Brown made to police in which he admitted robbing the gas station in question. Reverses one conviction of Class B felony robbery and remands for it to be vacated. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery, two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, and Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

George Feltner, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A04-1005-CR-293
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony child molesting.

J.R. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-1006-EX-606
Civil. Affirms denial of petition for unemployment benefits.

David A. Terry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A05-1004-CR-305
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class A felony dealing in a schedule II controlled substance, Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, and two counts of Class C felony possession of a schedule II controlled substance. Revises sentence and remands for re-sentencing.

Robert Anthony Solomon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1005-CR-587
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony dealing in cocaine; Class D felonies maintaining a common nuisance and resisting law enforcement; and Class A misdemeanors possession of marijuana and carrying a handgun without a license.

Kurtis Reynolds v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1004-CR-224
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Merle Hawkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1005-CR-279
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of paraphernalia and Class C misdemeanor panhandling.

Dmitriy V. Sklyarov v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1004-CR-228
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felony robbery and Class D felony pointing a firearm at another person.

In the Matter of B.J.N., Alleged to be CHINS; K.S. and R.S. v. Allen County DCS (NFP)
02A05-1005-JC-383
Juvenile. Affirms denial of a motion to correct error following denial of the parents’ motion to intervene and motion to deny change of placement of B.J.N.

Brandi Terry v. Damien Terry (NFP)
41A01-1009-DR-437
Domestic relation. Affirms order finding Brandi in contempt for denying Damien extended parenting time for the summer and the opportunity for additional parenting time pursuant to the right of first refusal.

The Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  2. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  3. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  4. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  5. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

ADVERTISEMENT