The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday.
Indiana Tax Court
Dale J. Scopelite and James T. Sheehan v. Indiana Dept. of Local Government Finance (NFP)
49T10-0812-TA-71
Tax. Affirms the Department of Local Government Finance’s final determination approving the City of Hammond’s
budget and tax levy for the 2008 tax year.
Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Court of Appeals
John Taele and Sarah Taele v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
06A01-1004-CT-259
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of State Farm. The Taeles aren’t entitled to recover uninsured motorist
benefits under their State Farm policy because they themselves were neither directly impacted nor directly physically injured
by the accident that killed their daughter. Judge Crone dissents.
J.M. v. D.A.
43A03-1003-DR-183
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of father’s petition to modify child support. The trial court did not err by imputing
potential earnings in father’s weekly gross income for purposes of calculating his support obligation after he became
a full-time student. Reverses finding father in contempt because the trial court did not find that father has the financial
ability to comply. Judge Bradford concurs in part, dissents in part.
Sean H. Chiszar v. State of Indiana
91A04-1004-CR-290
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony voyeurism, three counts of Class D felony possession of child
pornography, Class A misdemeanors possession of paraphernalia, possession of marijuana, and battery. Chiszar didn’t
show the voyeurism statute is unconstitutionally vague; the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion when it admitted
evidence deputies obtained after Chiszar had consented to the search of his garage; and there was sufficient evidence to support
the search warrant.
Douglas Denzell v. State of Indiana
49A02-1001-CR-89
Criminal. Affirms denial of Denzell’s motion to dismiss criminal charges of Class A misdeneaor resisting law enforcement
and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Denzell does not satisfy the test in Davis and Habibzadah to
show a due process violation because there remains the possibility that he will be restored to competency, even though he
cannot be sentenced to an additional term if convicted.
Y.G. v. Review Board
93A02-1004-EX-538
Civil. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits. There is no indication Y.G. explained his limitations or sought an alternative
placement until such time as his disability subsided.
Rebecca Reed-Harrison v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-0912-CR-740
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to dismiss criminal charge. Remands with instructions.
State of Indiana v. Lynn Wilson (NFP)
49A02-1003-PC-644
Post conviction. Reverses grant of Wilson’s petition for post-conviction relief.
Ivette Haylett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-113
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.
Charles Huntley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-401
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license which was enhanced to
a Class C felony due to a prior conviction.
Joel Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1002-CR-52
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to five Class B felonies.
Michael Clay v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1002-CR-56
Criminal. Affirms convictions of robbery resulting in serious bodily injury as a Class A felony and illegal consumption of
alcohol by a minor
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.K.; S.K. v. IDCS (NFP)
76A03-1004-JT-247
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.
Tracy D. Price v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1004-CR-399
Criminal. Affirms decision to order the execution of Price’s suspended sentence after he violated probation terms.
Peters Broadcast Engineering v. WROI-FM (NFP)
25A03-1005-SC-260
Small claims. Affirms judgment in favor of the radio station in a dispute over alleged unpaid balance plus interest of invoices
for repair and installation services performed for the station.
Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.














Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.