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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT