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. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT