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

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