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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT