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
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. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  2. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

  3. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  4. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

  5. I have dealt with more than a few I-465 moat-protected government attorneys and even judges who just cannot seem to wrap their heads around the core of this 800 year old document. I guess monarchial privileges and powers corrupt still ..... from an academic website on this fantastic "treaty" between the King and the people ... "Enduring Principles of Liberty Magna Carta was written by a group of 13th-century barons to protect their rights and property against a tyrannical king. There are two principles expressed in Magna Carta that resonate to this day: "No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." "To no one will We sell, to no one will We deny or delay, right or justice." Inspiration for Americans During the American Revolution, Magna Carta served to inspire and justify action in liberty’s defense. The colonists believed they were entitled to the same rights as Englishmen, rights guaranteed in Magna Carta. They embedded those rights into the laws of their states and later into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution ("no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.") is a direct descendent of Magna Carta's guarantee of proceedings according to the "law of the land." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/

ADVERTISEMENT