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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT