ILNews

Opinions Sept. 1, 2011

September 1, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
Indiana Tax Court

Lyle Lacey v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
49T10-1102-TA-7
Tax. Dismisses Lacey’s petition regarding his 2008 adjusted gross income tax liability. The issues in this action are substantially the same as those decided in Lacey v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey II), 948 N.E.2d 878 (Ind. Tax. Ct. 2011).

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions from Indiana courts at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mark E. Croy v. State of Indiana
48A02-1012-CR-1383
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony domestic battery and sentence imposed for that conviction and for Class D felony criminal confinement. The evidence is sufficient to show that Croy and Betty Cox had a spousal relationship at the time Croy attacked his ex-girlfriend. The sentence is appropriate.

In Re: The Marriage of J.D.S. and A.L.S.; M.S. v. A.L.S.
63A01-1102-DR-64
Domestic relation. Affirms dismissal of grandmother M.S.’s petition to modify grandparental visitation. Because M.S. did not file her petition for visitation until after her son’s parental rights were terminated, she no longer has standing as the parent of the children’s parent, and there were no existing visitation rights upon which to bootstrap continued visitation in the wake of the adoption.

Richard M. Clokey v. Penny M. Bosley Clokey
84A01-1009-DR-450
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s award of spousal support to Penny Clokey. The trial court was within its discretion to determine that Richard Clokey had transferred and commingled funds from the marital pot to the trust only he had access to and that he had dissipated funds when the court determined the appropriate distribution of the marital pot.

James Casey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1101-CR-40
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor dealing in marijuana and reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Remands with instructions.

First Savings Bank, F.S.B. v. Baird Realty Appraisal Consultants, Inc., Richard R. Baird, and Glen Sperzel (NFP)
22A05-1008-CT-479
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of the bank’s complaint because it was filed outside the two-year statute of limitations for negligence claims.

Sylvester Buckingham, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1102-CR-107
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of paraphernalia.

Michael L. Edwards v. State of Indiana (NFP)
59A05-1011-PC-769
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In Re: The Marriage of A.T.S. and B.K.T. (NFP)
20A05-1008-DR-564
Domestic relation. Affirms grant of motion to correct error regarding the amount of child support arrearage payable by father and denial of mother’s petition to transfer the case from Indiana to North Carolina. Remands with instructions to conduct a hearing upon mother’s allegation that father is in contempt of court for failure to pay a property settlement judgment.

Rikkia Weatherford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A04-1102-CR-65
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Daniel Wilkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1103-PL-119
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of motion for the return of property that was subject to a forfeiture action by the state.

Anthony Arnold v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1012-CR-689
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, Class D felony neglect of a dependent, and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony possession of methamphetamine, Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

McKenna T. Groves v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1102-CR-115
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor conversion.

Oswaldo Santos v. Allen County Sheriff (NFP)
02A05-1010-CT-654
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment resulting in the dismissal of Santos’ claim against the sheriff.

Thomas Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
38A04-1008-CR-478
Criminal. Grants rehearing, vacates portion of earlier decision affirming Smith’s one-year sentence for contempt, and remands to the trial court to re-sentence him to a term not to exceed six months. Affirms original decision in all other respects.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT