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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT