Opinions Nov. 22, 2011

November 22, 2011
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
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

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

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)
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
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery and Class D felony domestic battery.

Steven R. Farrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms sentences for Class D felony neglect of a dependent and associated charges.

Durell Rhymes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class D felony theft.  

Timothy Wright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.