ILNews

Opinions Jan. 24, 2014

January 24, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Tax Court
William W. Thorsness v. Porter County Assessor
49T10-1102-TA-14
Tax. Affirms final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review regarding Thorsness’ 2007 real property assessment. The burden-shifting rule contained in Indiana Code 6-1.1-15-1(p) and its progeny applies only to valuation challenges, not to uniform and equal constitutional challenges. Concludes that the Indiana Board of Tax Review did not err by determining that Thorsness’ ratio study did not demonstrate that the assessor’s assessment lacked uniformity.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Saral Reed and Durham School Services, Inc. v. Richard Bethel
49A02-1301-CT-9
Civil. Affirms a $3.9 million jury verdict in favor of Richard Bethel, who was struck by a school bus as he rode a bicycle to school. The appellate panel held that Reed and Durham were not deprived of a fair trial, that evidence the jury considered was properly admitted, and that the jury’s damages award is supported by evidence in the record.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Kimberly S. Earl and The Estate of Jerry Earl
36A05-1212-CT-635
Civil. Reverses a trial court award of $250,000 in favor of Earl and the estate and remands for a new trial, holding in a 2-1 opinion that evidence of the limits for an uninsured motorist policy was prejudicial to State Farm and should be ruled inadmissible as has been done in states such as Florida and Nebraska. Judge Patricia Riley dissents and would affirm the trial court, writing that prejudicial error is not established merely because the jury awarded the policy limit, but rather the jury awarded the policy limit in light of overwhelming evidence.

Jeffrey A. Cleary v. State of Indiana
45A03-1212-CR-518
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony causing death when operating a vehicle with a blood-alcohol content over 0.15 and various lesser counts for which a 14-year sentence was imposed. The court rejected Cleary’s claim that his conviction in a retrial after a judge denied his request for a directed verdict constituted double jeopardy. Judge Terry Crone dissented, finding that the court should have entered judgment on a conviction of a misdemeanor drunken-driving charge after Cleary’s first trial, and that the retrial was a violation of his Article I, Section 14 protections against double jeopardy under the Indiana Constitution.

Roberta Himes v. Bruce Thompson (NFP)
71A05-1305-CT-210
Civil. Affirms jury damages verdict of $13,600 in favor of Roberta Himes resulting for an auto collision.

Jess G. Revercomb, Sr. v. Yellow Book Sales and Distribution Company, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1305-CC-447
Collection. Affirms trial court judgment that Revercomb assumed liability as both a corporate representative and a personal guarantor when he signed advertising contracts with Yellow Book on behalf of a construction company.

Randall Capatina v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1304-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms four-year executed sentence for conviction of Class C felony disarming a law-enforcement officer.
 
Jerry Dillon v. State of Indiana, Burton A. Padove, Laurie Leber, and Patricia Pitcher (NFP)
45A05-1304-CT-165
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of Dillon’s complaint.

Jason Halcomb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
69A01-1306-CR-280
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and 40-year sentence. Judge Elaine Brown dissents, finding the sentence inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and Halcomb’s character, and would sentence him to no more than the advisory term.

Wesley Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1305-CR-467
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

In the Matter of: N.W. (minor child), a Child in Need of Services; A.B. (Mother) and No.W. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
53A04-1307-JC-335
Juvenile. Affirms determination that N.W. is a child in need of services.

Timothy Michael v. Gene Chandler (NFP)
20A04-1306-SC-300
Small claims. Affirms judgment of $5,697.50 in favor of Chandler.

Michael Sakha v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1305-PC-425
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief from a 50-year sentence for Class A convictions of attempted murder, attempted robbery and misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Carlton Hillman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1305-CR-241
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class B felony dealing in a narcotic drug.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: O.M. and T.M. (Minor Children), and B.M. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
42A01-1303-JT-152
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Indiana Supreme Court issued no opinions by IL deadline.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by 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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT