ILNews

Opinions Nov. 30, 2010

November 30, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Monday.
Indiana Tax Court
Hubler Realty Company v. Hendricks County Assessor
49T10-1001-TA-5
Tax. Affirms Indiana Board of Tax Review’s upholding of the Hendricks County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals’ assessment of Hubler’s commercial properties for the 2006 tax year. The assessor’s testimony doesn’t suggest that her assessments or her determination as to the propriety thereof were the products of sales chasing, spot assessments, or selective reappraisals. The PTABOA’s consideration of Hubler’s sales disclosure form doesn’t mean that it engaged in sales chasing or selectively reappraised Hubler’s properties.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court had posted
no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Albert J. Hall v. State of Indiana
06A05-1003-CR-187
Criminal. Reverses conviction of operating a motor vehicle as a habitual traffic offender as a Class D felony. The trial court committed fundamental error in its instruction on the mens rea element of the Habitual Traffic Violator Statute. Remands for a new trial.

MH Equity Managing Member, LLC v. Debra K. Sands
49A02-1005-CC-495
Civil collections. Affirms order enforcing a settlement agreement between MH Equity Managing Member and Sands providing for dismissal with prejudice of a complaint alleging that Sands had breached a fiduciary duty in performing services for MH Private Equity Fund. The parties entered into a binding contract which required the subsequent execution of a document memorializing their agreement and there is no uncertainty as to any substantial term of the settlement contract.

Anastacio Carrera v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-238
Criminal. Affirms convictions of child molesting as Class A and Class B felonies, and sexual misconduct with a minor as Class B and Class C felonies.

Involuntary Commitment of B.K. (NFP)
33A01-1006-MH-301
Mental health. Affirms commitment at Logansport State Hospital.

Kevin Ware v. State of Indiana (NFP)
69A01-1004-PC-204
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Justin Robinette v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1004-CR-501
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to three counts of Class B sexual misconduct with a minor, and one count of Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Maria Chavarria v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1007-CR-381
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to dealing in cocaine weighing over three grams, a Class A felony.

E.H., Alleged to be C.H.I.N.S.; J.H. v. Marion County D.C.S. (NFP)
49A02-1004-JC-539
Juvenile. Affirms determination that E.H. is a child in need of services.

Brandon Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1004-CR-267
Criminal. Affirms sentence for murder and Class B felony criminal confinement resulting in serious bodily injury.

D.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-JV-484
Juvenile. Affirms adjudications for committing what would be Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft if committed by an adult, and that the trial court disposition is appropriate.

In the Matter of the Adoption of E.L.; J.N. v. R.J. (NFP)
49A02-1005-AD-569
Adoption. Affirms denial of the stepfather’s petition to adopt his wife’s daughter.

L.S. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-0911-EX-1057
Civil. Affirms decision that L.S. is disqualified from eligibility for unemployment benefits because he was dismissed for just cause.

Kieno Austin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-820
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Town v. Review Board and B.K. (NFP)
93A02-1002-EX-146
Civil. Affirms grant of B.K.’s application for unemployment benefits.

Vera D. Alsadi v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1004-CR-561
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft.

Mary E. McKinney v. Windy Lane Farms, Inc., et al. (NFP)
08A02-1001-CC-71
Civil collections. Reverses dismissal of McKinney’s third-party complaint and the grant of summary judgment in favor of third-party defendants Windy Lane Farms and others. Remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of N.S., et al.; D.S. v. Bartholomew County D.C.S. (NFP)
03A01-1005-JT-222
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Anthony B. Rias, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1004-CR-182
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

DeWayne V. Adamson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1002-CR-88
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and the finding Adamson is a habitual offender.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to five cases for the week ending Nov. 24.
 

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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT