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

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT