ILNews

Opinions Oct. 26, 2011

October 26, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Oct. 25:

AE Outfitters Retail Co. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue (NFP)
49T10-1012-TA-66
Tax. Grants AE Outfitters’ motion for partial summary judgment and directs the court to set a case management conference to discuss all remaining matters by separate order.

Wednesday's opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Anthony D. Laster v. State of Indiana
02A03-1103-CR-91
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and four counts of Class B felony robbery, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Laster’s motion for continuance. Remands to the trial court to revise sentence, holding that in light of the offender’s character and nature of offenses, a fully executed sentence on each count is not warranted.

Hassan Alsheik v. Alice Guerrero, Individually and as Admin. of the Estate of Israel Arcuri
45A04-1011-CT-680
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s decision to admit results of a second autopsy, to allow Guererro’s pathologist to testify as an expert witness and holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting post-mortem photographs of the victim. Holds that the trial court erred in denying Guerrero’s request for pre-judgment interest and remands to the trial court for determination of pre-judgment interest.

Jeff Castetter, Tony Jones, David Strode and Matthew Hickey v. Lawrence Township
49A05-1105-PL-249
Civil plenary. Affirms court’s denial of appellants’ motion for summary judgment and its grant of Lawrence Township’s motion for summary judgment, holding there is no genuine issue of fact as to the Lawrence Township Fire Department Merit Commission’s decision to eliminate the rank of battalion chief.

Homestead Finance Corporation v. Southwood Manor L.P. d/b/a Village Green of Southwood Manor and d/b/a Village Green Mobile Home Park
71A04-1103-CC-167
Civil collection. Reverses trial court’s judgment in favor of Southwood Manor, holding that Homestead Finance was no longer subject to the Park Owner’s Lien Statute once it released its liens on the mobile homes in question. Remands to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Homestead.

Danielle Garrett v. State of Indiana
49A02-1101-CR-1
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanors battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting law enforcement, holding that Garrett failed to establish unlawful entry and that her resistance was not reasonable.

Dustin T. Allen v. State of Indiana
15A04-1101-CR-16
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s judgment denying Allen’s motion to dismiss, holding that he was improperly subjected to a successive prosecution that is prohibited under Indiana Code 35-41-4-4.

Jason Edward Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1102-CR-61
Criminal. Affirms sentences for Class B felony robbery and Class D felony auto theft.

Stephen Grady v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1011-CR-669
Criminal. Affirms court’s denial of motion for jail time credit.

Earl Lee Russelburg v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1103-CR-156
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

In the Matter of the Paternity of J.W. and A.W. (NFP)
67A04-1103-JP-147
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s custody determination awarding aunt custody.  

Daniel J. Harvey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1104-PC-150
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Maria Bodor v. Town of Lowell, Indiana; Board of Zoning of the Town of Lowell, Indiana; Wilbur Cox; and Frank Lagace (NFP)
45A03-1012-PL-666
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s order vacating and lifting its stay of the Town of Lowell’s demolition order and affirming the entry of that demolition order.

Arlene M. Doub v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1103-CR-100
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony receiving stolen property.

Anthony Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1103-CR-174
Criminal. Affirms court’s revocation of probation and order to serve balance of sentence.

Tenzin Tamding v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1104-CR-170
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony criminal recklessness and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Phillip Buhrt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1101-PC-43
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Protect-All Insurance Agency, Inc., Robert H. Drake, Jr., and Kevin Surface v. James E. Surface, Sr., and Allied Kitchen Equipment Sales, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1102-PL-136
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s grant of summary judgment on three counts of appellants’ counterclaim, but affirms the judgment of the trial court in all other respects. Remands for proceedings consistent with opinion.

Aaron Spencer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1102-CR-68
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Daniel Stovall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
68A01-1106-CR-245
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child.

Chester Lloyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1105-PC-520
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Christopher Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1011-CR-674
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony intimidation.

Floyd McQueen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A04-1103-CR-137
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Adam Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1101-CR-198
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, Class B felony dealing methamphetamine and three counts of Class D felony possession of precursors.

Demetreous A. Brown, Sr. v. Elisha J. Gray and Paul A. Brown (NFP)
49A02-1009-PL-1124
Civil plenary. Reverses order denying injunctive relief and dismissing Paul Brown as a party, holding appellant showed, prima facie, that he was not afforded procedural due process. Remands for further proceedings.

Craig S. Conrad v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1103-EX-261
Miscellaneous. Affirms decision finding Conrad was discharged for just cause.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.R.S. and A.L.S.; L.S. and X.K. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A04-1103-JT-157
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights of mother and father.

Norman Trent v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-1104-CR-172
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to correct abstract of judgment.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.J.H.; M.D. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services and Lake County CASA (NFP)
45A03-1104-JT-155
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

Kevin Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1283
Criminal. Affirms on rehearing a previous decision that Brown was not entitled to abandonment defense because his decision to abandon a robbery attempt was based on extrinsic factors.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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