Opinions May 12, 2011

May 12, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
State ex rel. Gregory F. Zoeller v. Aisin USA Manufacturing, Inc.
Civil. Holds the attorney general’s attempt to recover a “tax refund” from Aisin in Jackson Superior Court may proceed. It does not arise under the tax laws because the “refund” was the result of accounting and clerical errors with in the Department of Revenue that were wholly unrelated to any interpretation or application of tax law. Justices Rucker and Dickson dissent.

Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor battery on a law enforcement officer, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. There is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers, so the trial court didn’t err in failing to give Barnes’ proffered jury instruction on this right, and the evidence was sufficient to support Barnes’ convictions. Justices Rucker and Dickson dissent.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Commissioner of Labor on the Relation of Vincent and Antimo Scialdone v. An Island, LLC
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of An Island LLC’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and order the case transferred to Perry County. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Perry County was the only preferred venue for the case.

Erodney Davis v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony possession of cocaine. The trial court did err by permitting a police detective to testify as a skilled witness, but it was a harmless error. The trial court did not err by excluding evidence of a witness’s prior drug-related convictions or by giving an additional instruction to the jury that it had inadvertently omitted from the final jury instructions.

Jameson Malbrough v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony child molesting, and one count each of Class C felony child molesting, Class D felony vicarious sexual gratification, and Class D felony intimidation.

James Spann v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor obstructing traffic.

Rodney Griffin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of R.A., et al.; A.L. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Lloyd Conn v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder. The evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction.

Robert A. Jordan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of request for additional educational credit time.

Thomas Huffine v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following revocation of probation.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?