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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT