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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT