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. 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