ILNews

Opinions March 16, 2012

March 16, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions by IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Harry Foster III and Linda Foster v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
11-3100
United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springman.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, holding the Fosters’ failure to produce requested documents was a material breach of their insurance agreement.

Indiana Supreme Court
Jesse J. Harris, Jr. v. State of Indiana
34S02-1203-CR-169
Criminal. Clarifies a matter Harris presented in his appeal, holding that a person who claims forum-shopping has occurred in a criminal case need not establish prejudice in order to prevail on appeal. Requests the judges of Howard County to draft amendments to Local Rule 29 that clear-up ambiguous areas of the law in order to prevent future challenges.

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. AOL, LLC
49S10-1108-TA-514
Tax appeal. Reverses the tax court’s determination that AOL does not owe sales tax for promotional matters distributed in Indiana. The components acquired from vendors outside of Indiana were used to make CD-ROM packages, and AOL argued that it did not acquire the CD-ROM packages and promotional materials in any retail transactions because it merely purchased assembly and printing services. But the Supreme Court held that because the assembly houses and letter shops were selling at retail, the transactions between AOL and its assembly houses and letter shops constituted retail transactions that triggered Indiana’s use tax once AOL used the property in Indiana.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Harry Kaufmann Motorcars, Inc. v. Schumaker Performance, Inc.
41A05-1108-MI-411
Miscellaneous. Reverses ruling by Johnson Superior Judge Lance Hamner to set aside a Wisconsin court’s default judgment regarding sale of a boat. Appellate court holds that Wisconsin’s long-arm statute and caselaw dictates that the state court had personal jurisdiction on the case. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance Company as subrogee of Joseph Koors d/b/a Koors Amoco v. Harleysville Insurance Company
43A04-1109-PL-507
Civil plenary. Reverses Kosciusko Superior Judge Duane Huffer’s decision that granted summary judgment for Harleysville Insurance Company regarding insurance policy coverage pertaining to a service station environmental contamination. Holds that insurance company was not entitled to summary judgment on policy exclusion and questions about notification, and remands for further proceedings.

Jack Messer v. New Albany Police Department
22A05-1104-MI-179
Miscellaneous. Affirms judgment by Floyd Superior Judge Roger Duvall, granting summary judgment for New Albany Police Department and finding there was no issue of fact as to whether police officer Jack Messer’s racially charged remarking to other officers during roll call was considered conduct unbecoming of an officer. That comment provided an appropriate basis for his 30-day suspension. Judge John Baker dissented, finding the department did not meet its burden in proving its interests in operational efficiency outweighed Messer’s First Amendment rights.

Chad M. McLain v. State of Indiana
20A05-1109-CR-480
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s decision to allow evidence obtained in a search of McLain’s car after his initial traffic stop had been completed. Holds that because the police officer told McLain he was free to go, he was not obligated to agree to the search or answer questions, and no violation of his constitutional rights occurred.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. and Adoption of J.P.; M.P. and Z.P.; D.P. and G.P. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services and J.H. and T.H. (NFP)
71A03-1106-JT-248
Juvenile. Affirms probate court’s denial of paternal grandparents’ petition to adopt J.P. Dismisses without prejudice the court’s decision regarding the foster parents’ adoption petition, because it was neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order.

Lesnick Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1105-CR-415
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony rape, six counts Class A felony deviate conduct, Class B felony burglary, Class B felony robbery, Class B felony criminal confinement and associated charges.

Rickey Robey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1107-CR-433
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence, holding that the motion was not the appropriate vehicle for Robey to use.

Dominee M. Florence v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Kindred Nursing Centers LTD PTR (NFP)
93A02-1109-EX-867
Civil. Dismisses appeal, due to Florence’s numerous and substantial violations of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Paul J. Kinnaman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-1105-CR-229
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

R.F. and I.A. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
41A05-1107-JT-376
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights for mother and father.

Andre Gonzalez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1108-CR-369
Criminal. Reverses denial of Gonzalez’ petition to remove his sex offender designation, holding that at the time he was sentenced, Indiana law did not require lifetime registration. Remands for removal of his registration.

Rebecca A. Thieling v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1108-CR-344
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony forgery and Class D felony auto theft.

Terrell Ewell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1107-CR-401
Criminal. Dismisses case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding Ewell did not timely file his notice of appeal.

Todd Richmond v. Erin Mager (Richmond) (NFP)
64A05-1108-DR-455
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of father’s petition for change of custody and grant of mother’s petition for modification of father’s parenting time.

B.O. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1111-JV-503
Juvenile. Affirms J.O.’s placement with the Department of Correction.

Kimberly L. Zapalac v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1107-CR-762
Criminal. Dismisses appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as Zapalac committed several crimes and made two plea agreements 12 years ago, before absconding.

Jeffrey S. Pryor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1108-CR-740
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated.

In Re: The Adoption of T.L.; M.J. v. D.F. and K.F. and Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
49A04-1108-AD-477
Adoption. Affirms trial court’s dismissal of M.J.’s petition to adopt his half-sister.

Olde York Potato Chips, Inc., ONAP, Inc., and Peter Margie v. Shenolikar Dwarka and Dwarka & Sons, Inc. (NFP)
02A05-1107-PL-375
Civil plenary. Dismisses Olde York’s appeal, holding it does not appear to be an interlocutory appeal that may be brought as of right and would be the subject of an interlocutory appeal only on certification by the trial court and acceptance by appeals court, and that there is no such certification or acceptance in the case.

Dathan Alexander v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1105-CR-465
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT