ILNews

Opinions Oct. 17, 2013

October 17, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday.
Orbitz, LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
49T10-0903-TA-10
Tax. Grants Orbitz’s request to have certain documents, including contracts with Indiana hotels, placed under seal. The contracts have the four characteristics of trade secrets, so they fall within the mandatory exceptions to the general rule of public access set forth in the Access to Public Records Act and Administrative Rule 9.

Thursday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Timothy L. Hyser v. State of Indiana
20A05-1301-CR-37
Criminal. Reverses convictions of Class A felony and Class C felony child molesting. The exclusion of the evidence Hyser wished to present deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. The state is not barred from retrying Hyser.

North American Roofing Services, Inc. v. Menard, Inc.
26A01-1303-PL-125
Civil plenary. Reverses grant of summary judgment to Menard and denial of partial summary judgment to North American Roofing Services on its lawsuit after Menard refused to pay for installation of a new roof. Remands with instructions to deny Menard’s motion for summary judgment on NARSI’s claims for breach of contract and foreclosure of mechanic’s lien; grant NARSI’s motion for partial summary judgment on its claim for breach of contract; and move forward to resolve NARSI’s claim to foreclose upon mechanic’s lien.

Anthony Worl v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1302-CR-167
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting, Class D felony child solicitation and three counts of Class C felony child molesting, as well as a habitual offender determination.

Antonio Hughley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1301-CR-40
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class D felony dealing in marijuana.

William J. Eisele v. State of Indiana (NFP)
51A01-1304-PC-154
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Darren Englert v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1302-CR-88
Criminal. Vacates convictions of Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder, Class D felony criminal confinement and Class C felony conspiracy to commit battery. Affirms convictions of Class B felony conspiracy to commit criminal confinement, Class C felony battery and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and affirms 80-year sentence.

Jeffery Bonds v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1301-CR-11
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony invasion of privacy.

Darrail Mix v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-314
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies domestic battery and battery and Class A misdemeanors domestic battery and resisting law enforcement.

Frances Ashton v. City of Indianapolis (NFP)
49A02-1210-MI-815
Miscellaneous. Affirms judgment affirming the decision of the merit board of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department to terminate Ashton’s employment as a police officer.

Harold Ferrin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-PC-839
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Justin Dent v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A03-1304-CR-128
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator.

Norman T. Podell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1302-CR-64
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class D felony pointing a firearm.

David Davenport v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-CR-842
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony dealing in cocaine and conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Remands for the trial court to impose a sentence on the misdemeanor conviction that comports with I.C. 35-50-3-2.

Miguel Perez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-288
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony identity deception.

Bush Truck Leasing, Inc., v. Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (NFP)
49A05-1304-CT-189
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Indiana Farmers on Bush Truck Leasing’s complaint for declaratory judgment and damages.

FSF Presidential Estates, Associates, LLC, individually and d/b/a Presidential Estates Apartments and Indianapolis Power and Light v. Joshua Grounds, Fleener Roofing & Guttering, LLC (NFP)
49A05-1305-CT-209
Civil tort. Affirms denial of IPL’s motion for summary judgment and Grounds’ motion for partial summary judgment in Grounds’ suit filed to recover damages after he was electrocuted.

Devon Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1303-CR-286
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Stanley D. Wills v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1210-CR-834
Criminal. Vacates Wills’ conviction for Class C felony theft as a lesser included offense of robbery and remands for further proceedings. Affirms convictions of Class B felony aiding in the commission of armed robbery, Class B felony conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and Class B felony criminal confinement, as well as finding Wills is a habitual offender.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by 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