ILNews

Opinions Oct. 29, 2010

October 29, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT