ILNews

Opinions Nov. 22, 2011

November 22, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinions were posted after IL deadline Monday:
Estate of Christine L. Neterer, Deceased; Deborah Pollock and Marilyn Humbarger, Co-Personal Representatives v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
49T10-1006-TA-26
Tax. Affirms probate court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Indiana Department of Revenue, holding that Neterer is not entitled to a refund of estate tax, because she was unable to prove that she was entitled to a 30 percent discount, and that the Value of Decedent’s Interest in Real Estate was unverified, unsigned, prepared by an anonymous person and failed to disclose how the 30 percent discount was calculated.

Gordon A. Etzler v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue

45T10-1105-TA-38
Tax. Dismisses appeal on the grounds that the Tax Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, holding that Etzler’s complaint is not about Indiana’s tax laws, but rather about a collection matter arising from a final judgment against Dodson in Marshall Circuit Court.

Today’s opinions:

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
Lisa Gray v. State of Indiana

82S01-1106-CR-328
Criminal. Reinstates trial court’s guilty verdict on Gray’s charge of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, rejecting the argument that insufficient evidence existed to support her conviction. Holds that the word of two police officers held more influence with the trial court than the testimony of Gray’s son, whom Gray appeared to be coaching during trial about how to answer questions.

Indiana Court of Appeals
DeGood Dimensional Concepts, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1104-EX-390
Miscellaneous. Affirms Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board’s finding that substantial evidence exists to support the argument that DeGood Dimensional Concepts failed to prove that employee John Wilder violated a reasonable and uniformly enforced attendance rule. Reverses board and administrative law judge’s conclusion that Wilder would not have been discharged except for the existence of all the reasons stated by the employer. Remands for consideration of those reasons and for additional findings as to whether Wilder was discharged for just cause.

Amanda D. Brown v. State of Indiana
62A01-1105-CR-224
Criminal. Reverses sentence and remands to trial court to recalculate credit for time served and for hearing on whether Brown is entitled to credit time for the days she participated in a drug-treatment program.

Thormonn Lawrence v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1104-CR-152
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery and Class D felony domestic battery.

Steven R. Farrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
04A03-1101-CR-21
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder and sentence for murder and Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Katina D. Logan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1104-CR-186
Criminal. Affirms sentences for Class D felony neglect of a dependent and associated charges.

Durell Rhymes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1104-CR-371
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class D felony theft.  

Timothy Wright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1005-CR-490
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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