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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT