ILNews

Opinions June 19, 2013

June 19, 2013
Keywords
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
49T10-1002-TA-7
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
36A04-1211-PO-605
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

73A01-1209-CR-452
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

49A02-1211-CR-878
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)
02A03-1212-CR-550
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a license.

Jason E. Morales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1211-PC-530
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)

49A05-1210-JC-500
Juvenile. Affirms parental participation order entered as part of the juvenile court’s dispositional order.

Corey L. Mosley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-PC-249
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jason Matlock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1209-CR-742
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)
49A05-1202-PL-92
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)
29A02-1205-MI-414
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)
49A02-1211-CR-924
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)

22A01-1210-CR-447
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)
49A05-1208-PC-432
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

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

71A03-1210-DR-420
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)
30A01-1208-DR-380
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)
71A05-1301-CR-10
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)
82A01-1208-CR-360
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Christopher A. Fischer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1207-CR-382
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)
53A05-1208-CR-452
Criminal. Affirms revocation of suspended sentence.

Tyris D. Lapsley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1211-CR-477
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)

49A02-1211-PC-906
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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT