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. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT