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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT