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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT