ILNews

Opinions, Oct. 3, 2013

October 3, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Opinions, Oct. 3, 2013

Indiana Tax Court

Orange County Assessor v. James E. Stout
49T10-1112-TA-94
Property tax. Affirms the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review that the Orange County Assessor failed the meet the burden of proving that Stout’s land assessment was proper. Finds although the Indiana Board applied a 2011 statute to a 2010 appeal, the 2011 law was not new but a clarification of the original 2009 statute which shifted the burden to the assessor. Also rules the assessor failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that Stout was not using his 8.12 acre property for an agriculture purpose.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Koch Development Corporation and Daniel L. Koch v. Lori A. Koch, as Personal Representative of the Estate of William A. Koch, Jr., Deceased
82A04-1212-PL-612
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court’s judgment that Lori A. Koch, as personal representative of the Estate of William A. Koch Jr., does not have to sell the estate’s share in Holiday World and Splashin’ Safari to Koch Development Corp. and Daniel L. Koch. Finds the evidence supports the conclusion that Daniel Koch and KDC materially breached the terms of the Share Purchase and Security Agreement by offering a per-share price that was significantly less than the price agreed to by the parties. Also rules that this material breach relieves the estate from its obligation sell its shares.  

Katherine Chaffins and Roger Chaffins Sr. v. Clint Kauffman, M.D.; Family and Women's Health Services; and Pulaski County Memorial Hospital
66A04-1302-CT-85
Civil tort. Reverses grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Clint Kauffman and Family and Women’s Health Services, with the majority finding that a material issue of genuine fact exists as to the Chaffinses’ claim that defendants’ alleged negligence after a colonoscopy resulted in 12 hours of prolonged pain before the subsequent diagnosis of a perforated colon. Judge Elaine Brown dissented and would have affirmed summary judgment because no evidence shows that the defendants deviated from the standard of care appropriate in such a case.

Geroge A. Nunley v. State of Indiana
10A04-1212-CR-630
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony robbery but reverses habitual offender finding because it was based on a complaint amended after a jury had been empaneled, prejudicing Nunley’s substantial rights. The panel concluded that no part of I.C. 35-34-1-5 allowed the amendment that the state proposed in this case. The matter was remanded to removing the 12-year enhancement to an eight-year sentence on the robbery conviction.

Shayla Bowling v. State of Indiana
92A03-1212-CR-553
Criminal. Affirms a conviction of Class D felony domestic violence, holding that a jury properly determined that Bowling was “living as if a spouse” with the victim with whom she was involved in a romantic relationship despite being married to another man. The court rejected Bowling’s argument that she could not be living as if a spouse with another person while she was married because to do so would be bigamy and that applying the domestic violence statute in her case could arguably broaden the scope of the law.

Jose Garcia v. G. Wm. Walker Construction (NFP)
93A02-1305-EX-437
Civil. Affirms the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board’s ruling that Garcia’s injury did not arise from his employment.

Elbert G. Elliott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1212-CR-659
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Elliott’s probation based on drug use and willful failure to pay restitution.

Milton L. Medsker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1303-PC-203
Post conviction. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of Medsker’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Marlen Hernandez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1304-CR-181
Criminal. Affirms conviction for criminal recklessness, a Class D felony.

Richard Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1212-CR-571
Criminal. Affirms Green’s conviction for armed robbery, a Class B felony, and his adjudication as a habitual offender.

Robert Klinglesmith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1303-CR-116
Criminal. Affirms in part and reverses in part. Concludes that Klinglesmith did not suffer fundamental error due to the cumulative effect of allegedly erroneously admitted evidence but that one of his two convictions for Class B felony criminal deviate conduct must be vacated due to double jeopardy concerns.  

Matthew P. Thrall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
56A05-1304-CR-159
Criminal. Affirms 13-year sentence for pleading guilty to one count of Class B felony rape.

Priority Press, Inc. v. Media Methodology (NFP)
29A02-1303-SC-278
Small claims. Affirms judgment in favor of Media Methodology.

Rasheen Middleton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1301-CR-8
Criminal. Affirms conviction and 12-year sentence, with two years suspended, for one count of Class B felony unlawful possession of firearm by a serious violent felon.

Dennis Tiller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1211-CR-928
Criminal. Affirms convictions for one count child molesting as a Class A felony and one count child molesting as a Class C felony. Concludes while the prosecutor’s comments may have been more narrowly construed, they did not prevent Tiller from receiving a fair trial.

Indiana Supreme Court released no opinions before IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals released no Indiana opinions before 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