ILNews

Opinions May 28, 2014

May 28, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Hamilton County Assessor v. SPD Realty, LLC
49T10-1104-TA-28
Tax. Affirms the Board of Tax Review’s final determination that SPD Realty’s real and personal property qualified for a charitable purposes exemption for the 2009 tax year. The board’s final determination is not contrary to law and unsupported by substantial evidence because New Life occupied and used the property for a charitable purpose; SPD owned the property for a charitable purpose; and the property was predominately used for charitable purposes.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Joshua Bunn v. Khoury Enterprises Inc.
13-2292
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for Bunn’s former employer, a Dairy Queen franchise, on his claims that his employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bunn’s failure-to-accommodate claim falls short because his employer did reasonably accommodate his disability. His disparate treatment claim fails because he has not introduced sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of material fact and because the undisputed facts show that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Craig Alvey v. State of Indiana
20A04-1310-MI-533
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of Alvey’s petition to expunge the records of his conviction. He did not meet all the requirements of the expungement statute because he admitted twice to violating his probation before successfully completing his sentence.

Melisa R. Digbie v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Eaglecare LLC
93A02-1312-EX-1054
Agency action. Reverses decision of the Review Board of the Department of Workforce Development in favor of Eaglecare LLC on Digbie’s claim for unemployment benefits and its determination that Digbie received notice of the Aug. 6 hearing. The DWD presented no evidence that it mailed notice of the hearing to Digbie, so it was not entitled to the rebuttable presumption that she received notice. Remands for a new evidentiary hearing.

Tyrece Robertson v. State of Indiana
49A05-1310-CR-487
Criminal. Reverses convictions of Class D felony attempted residential entry and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief. The trial court erred when it overruled Robertson’s Baston challenge contesting the state’s use of a peremptory challenge to strike a juror.

A.H. v. State of Indiana
49A05-1309-JV-450
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile court’s restitution order requiring A.H. to provide restitution to the probation department for the electronic monitoring bracelet she cut off and left at a park. The admission agreement left disposition open to the juvenile court and the court did not fail to inquire into her ability to pay.

Jeremy L. Honaker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A01-1306-PC-291
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Napoleon Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1308-CR-434
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress the results of a traffic stop.

Jory D. Peters v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1305-CR-177
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Idowa Hood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1309-CR-828
Criminal. Reverses sentence and orders trial court to resentence Hood and calculate his pretrial credit time in accordance with I.C. 35-38-3-2(b)(4).

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.S. (Minor Child), and S.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1309-JT-784
Juvenile. Affirms order denying mother’s motion for relief under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) and involuntarily terminating her parental rights.

Rachel M. Swaney and Eric Swaney v. Chrysler Group LLC and Grieger's Motor Sales, Inc. (NFP)
64A03-1401-CT-25
Civil tort. Reverses dismissal of the Swaneys’ complaint for failure to prosecute and remands for further proceedings.

Gary Maxwell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1308-CR-427
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangers a person.  

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.C. (Minor Child) and E.C. (Mother) and R.C. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
48A02-1310-JT-875
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Johnnie Winford v. State of Indiana (NFP)

22A01-1307-CR-303
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child.

Mercedes Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1311-CR-962
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor theft.

Jeffrey Duncan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1310-CR-456
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with a BAC equivalent to 0.15 and determination as a habitual substance offender.

Kevin A. Deubner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1309-CR-439
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections program.

Deandrew Russell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1308-CR-389
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony criminal confinement.

Vincent W. Hren v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1310-CR-436
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felonies operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator and operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Michael Widup v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-861
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A felony child molesting and three convictions of Class C felony child molesting but vacates one conviction of Class C felony child molesting as it violates double jeopardy. Vacates sentence imposed on that count.

William Crockett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1307-PC-374
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jesse Clements v. Davina Curry (NFP)
49A02-1308-CT-713
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of Clements’ counterclaim, reverses grant of summary judgment to Curry and remands for a hearing.

Rashawn Speed v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1308-CR-696
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting, Class C felony child molesting and Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Steve D. Boyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1310-CR-438
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class B felony dealing in narcotics.

Justin M. Alexander v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1310-CR-403, 02A03-1310-CR-404, 02A03-1310-CR-405
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentences in three separate, but related, criminal appeals. Remands for clarification of the sentencing orders.

Jason Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-891
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony residential entry, Class A misdemeanor interference with reporting a crime and Class A misdemeanor conversion.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline Wednesday.
 

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