Opinions June 19, 2013

June 19, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court decision was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Vodafone Americas Inc. and Vodafone Holdings LLC v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
Tax. Denies Vodafone’s motion for summary judgment for refund of adjusted gross income tax paid during taxable years ending March 31, 2005 – March 31, 2008. The income it received as a partner of Cellco had the character of operational income and was therefore not income in the form of “dividends from investments” under I.C. 6-3-2-2.2(g).

Indiana Court of Appeals
Revas Spencer v. Tiffany Spencer
Protective order. Reverses denial of the agreed order dismissing an order of protection submitted by the Spencers to the trial court. Since the word “shall” appears in the statute regarding the trial court’s actions when the petitioner files for the dismissal of a protection order, the trial court didn’t have the discretion to deny the parties’ request to dismiss the protective order.

Floyd Weddle v. State of Indiana

Criminal. Affirms admission of certain evidence after police officers conducted a protective sweep of Weddle’s residence and subsequently searched the premises following the issuance of a search warrant. The scope of the protective sweep was reasonable because officers heard additional movement after taking Weddle into custody and did locate other people in the house.

Josiah Williams v. State of Indiana

Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. The evidence of probative value exists from which the trial court as the trier of fact could have found Williams guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of public intoxication.

Natalie Rouse v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a license.

Jason E. Morales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In the Matter of: M.W., Minor Child, A Child in Need of Services, E.W., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

Juvenile. Affirms parental participation order entered as part of the juvenile court’s dispositional order.

Corey L. Mosley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jason Matlock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms admission of evidence police obtained pursuant to a traffic stop.

Wellpoint, Inc. (f/k/a Anthem, Inc.) and Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa; AIG Europe (U.K.) Limited, New Hampshire Ins. Co., et al. (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Wellpoint’s insurers, who denied coverage for Wellpoint’s defense and settlement of a number of lawsuits against it.

King of Clean Automotive, LLC, v. New Truck Alternative, LLC. (NFP)
Miscellaneous. Affirms the ruling that King of Clean’s mechanic’s liens were not valid and the grant of New Truck Alternative’s petition for replevin.

Erica Battle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Remands with instructions that the trial court vacate two of the three Class C forgery convictions and affirms in all other respects.

Christopher Baxter v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms murder conviction and reverses Baxter’s 55-year sentence and remands with instructions to sentence him under the correct statute.

Anthony Houston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In Re: The Marriage of: Caleb E. Campbell v. Anna P. Campbell (NFP)

Domestic relation. Reverses order that the paternal and maternal grandparents participate in family therapy and the court orders with respect to the division of the marital estate to the extent it failed to allocate Pell grants to Caleb Campbell. Remands for modification of the decree of dissolution consistent with this opinion and affirms in all other respects.

In Re: The Marriage of: Bernard Lee, Jr. v. Jackie Smith (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms the court’s custody determination for K.L., reverses the court’s order regarding property division and remands for further proceedings.

Bernard L. Strickland v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony burglary and Class A misdemeanors resisting law enforcement and possession of paraphernalia and for being a habitual offender.

Daniel R. Fuquay, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Christopher A. Fischer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony burglary and Class D felonies receiving stolen property and theft.

Wade R. Meisberger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of suspended sentence.

Tyris D. Lapsley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

James H. Suttle, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  2. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  3. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  4. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?

  5. Research by William J Federer Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278): "Reverend Sir, I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of February last. I have read it with great attention and advantage. The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, and those means have been used by government..." John Marshall continued: "No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, and had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both. With very great respect, I am Sir, your Obedt., J. Marshall."