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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT