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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT