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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT