ILNews

Opinions June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
The Speedway Public Library v. Indiana Department of Local Government Finance
49T10-1103-TA-22
Tax. Affirms the Department of Local Government Finance’s final determination rejecting the appropriations and levies associated with the library’s 2011 budget and decision to reinstitute the appropriations and levies associated with the 2010 budget. Public notice of the town council’s Sept. 13 meeting was statutorily required.  

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
Lloyd J. Diehl v. Larry J. Clemons
45A04-1309-CT-460
Civil tort. Reverses order granting Clemons’ motion to correct error, following a jury trial, and ordering a new trial on the question of damages owed by Diehl to Clemons. The trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing on the question of juror bias instead of ordering a new trial. Remands for hearing.

Jereme Lee Wall v. Alfred H. Plummer, III
85A02-1311-MI-976
Miscellaneous.  Affirms denial of petition to expunge the records of Wall’s Class C felony criminal mischief conviction. Wall admitted violating the terms of his probation, and by doing so he failed to successfully complete his sentence.

White County Board of Commissioners v. Y.M.C.A. Camp Tecumseh, Inc.
08A04-1401-MI-17
Miscellaneous. Reverses determination that Carroll County is a preferred venue in this case. Carroll County is not a preferred venue, so the trial court erred in denying the motion to transfer to White County. Remands for the trial court to grant White County Board of Commissioner’s motion to transfer.

Hugo Torres v. City of Hammond and City of Hammond Board of Public Works and Safety
45A03-1306-PL-205
Civil plenary. Reverses decision upholding an order by the city of Hammond Board of Public Works and Safety to demolish Torres’ house. Torres did not have the benefit of an impartial decision-maker in the proceeding that ordered demolition of his property.

In re the Estate of Ruth M. Rupley, Charles A. Rupley v. Michael L. Rupley
71A05-1306-ES-288
Estate. Reverses order finding the balance of a promissory note executed by Charles Rupley and his mother, Ruth Rupley, is an asset of her estate. Finds Transfer on Death Property Act retroactively applies and the promissory note is not an asset of the estate. Judge Riley dissents in part.

Centier Bank v. 1st Source Bank (NFP)
64A03-1309-MF-356
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment for 1st Source on its complaint to foreclose on a mortgage it held.

Braunel Mackey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-873
Criminal. Affirms 15-year sentence for Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Frederick Cashner, Sr. and Lucille Cashner v. Western-Southern Life Assurance Company (NFP)
64A04-1311-PL-555
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of motion for costs and attorney fees filed by Western-Southern Life Assurance Co. in a bad-faith action filed by the Cashners concerning the disbursement of proceeds from a life insurance policy.

Brian Earl Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
50A05-1308-CR-444
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea and remands for a hearing.

John A. Gall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1309-CR-769
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

In Re the Marriage of Russell C. Best and Mariea L. Best, Mariea L. Best v. Russell C. Best (NFP)
06A04-1401-DR-46
Domestic relation. Affirms enforcement of an October 2011 Mediated Agreed Entry, wherein the parties agreed that Russell Best would serve as guardian to 19-year-old daughter M.B., who has Down Syndrome.

Gwayne Slater v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1311-CR-987
Criminal.  Affirms sentence for Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of M.S. v. Gallahue Mental Health Services (NFP)
49A02-1311-MH-939
Mental health. Affirms temporary commitment order.

Ronald A. Manley v. State of Indiana and Bruce Lemmon, In his official capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction (NFP)
33A01-1310-MI-458
Miscellaneous. Affirms dismissal of Manley’s motion for a temporary injunction to exempt him from participating in the Indiana Sex Offender Management and Monitoring Program.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions 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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT