ILNews

Opinions March 19, 2014

March 19, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Fraternal Order of Eagles #3988, Inc. v. Morgan County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals and Morgan County Assessor
49T10-1201-TA-4
Tax. Affirms board of tax review’s determination that the Fraternal Order of Eagles #3988 Inc. was not entitled to either a fraternal beneficiary association exemption or a charitable purposes exemption for the 2006 tax year.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Shawn Lawrence Corbally v. State of Indiana
41A04-1304-CR-175
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony burglary, Class A felony rape, four counts of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct and two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, but revises Corbally’s 270-year sentence to 165 years. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of Greenwood police investigator Patti Cummings as to what victim M.R. told her about the incident, but the admission was harmless. His sentence is so far outside the norm for a single episode of conduct against a single victim that the court choose to reduce it. Judge Robb dissents without opinion in regards to the sentence.

D.C., Jr. v. C.A., J.D.A. and B.A.
48A05-1305-JP-265
Juvenile. Dismisses father D.C. Jr.’s appeal of the order denying his petition for change of custody of his son. The appeal was not timely filed.

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., Sierra Club, and Valley Watch, Inc. v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, et al. (NFP)
93A02-1301-EX-76
Agency action. Affirms orders of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission related to power plant construction costs incurred by Duke Energy Indiana Inc. and a settlement agreement executed by Duke and other settling parties adopted as modified by the commission.

Meredith J. Rowley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1307-CR-370
Criminal. Affirms revocation of home detention.

In Re the Guardianship of Anthony J. Panzica, Protected Person, Anthony J. Panzica v. Real Services, Inc. (NFP)
71A04-1309-GU-448
Guardianship. Affirms probate court’s approval of the final accounting that concerned various disbursements by Panzica’s temporary guardian to his wife for medical supplies and other expenses.

David D. Pike v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1307-CR-321
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony robbery resulting in serious bodily injury and Class B felony aggravated battery.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.E. (Minor Child), and C.E. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1309-JT-749
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Justin Whitmore v. South Bend Public Transportation Corporation a/k/a TRANSPO (NFP)
71A03-1306-CT-242
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of TRANSPO on Whitmore’s negligence complaint. Remands for further proceedings.

Andrew Whitmer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1306-CR-318
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count of Class C felony child molesting and one count of Class A felony attempted child molesting.

Mile Djuric v. Eggert Builders, Inc., and Matt Anderson d/b/a Anderson Plastering Co. (NFP)
45A03-1307-CT-275
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Eggert Builders in Djuric’s negligence action against Eggert.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: Z.S., K.S., and M.W., (Minor Children), S.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A04-1307-JT-412
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

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

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