ILNews

Opinions Sept. 17, 2013

September 17, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Tax Court
The following opinion was released after IL deadline Monday.
United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
49T10-0704-TA-24
Premiums tax. On remand from a reversal by the Indiana Supreme Court, denies UPS’s motion for summary judgment of an appeal of taxes due for the years 2000 and 2001 and grants summary judgment in favor of the Department of Revenue, holding that statutes governing premiums tax on out-of-state insurers are immune from Commerce Clause challenges.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Bartholomew County and Bartholomew County Commissioners v. Doug Johnson and Lucretia Johnson v. C & H/M Excavating and Construction, Inc., and Christopher B. Burke Engineering, LTD.
03A01-1212-CT-578
Civil tort. Reverses denial of summary judgment in favor of Bartholomew County. Remands for further proceedings as to the county’s allegedly negligent maintenance and operation of the bridge. Finds that under Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3(10), the county had immunity from liability because the construction of the bridge was a delegable duty.

Evergreen Shipping Agency Corp., v. Djuric Trucking, Inc.
45A03-1302-CC-40
Civil collection. Affirms award of legal fees for Djuric Trucking Inc., holding that the award is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata and therefore Djuric has not waived its claim.

Nancy A. Missig v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Andre M. Missig, and Autumn Missig
34A02-1212-CT-1002
Civil tort. Affirms trial court ruling in a dispute over proceeds from a real estate insurance policy issued to the son and daughter-in-law of Nancy Missig who were purchasing a home from her on a land contract. Andre Missig and Autumn Missig received proceeds from a total-loss fire, but Nancy Missig failed to convince the appeals court that State Farm owed an interest to her because she was not named on the policy taken out by her son and daughter-in-law. Also affirmed is a trial court judgment in Nancy’s favor and a lien sufficient to satisfy the land contract on a property Andre and Autumn purchased with insurance proceeds.

Nathan K. Barker v. State of Indiana
73A01-1212-CR-575
Criminal. Remands for new sentencing order that does not exceed the 40-year cap on the executed portion of Barker’s sentence. Affirms all other aspects of his sentence. Finds since detainees serving home detention can earn credit for time served, Barker’s 120-day home detention exceeded the terms of his plea agreement which limited the executed time to 40 years. Also concludes the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not consider Barker’s apology as mitigating circumstance. Finally, holds that Barker failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his sentence is inappropriate.  

Kenneth F. Kipp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1211-CR-507
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony burglary; Class B felony armed robbery; two counts of Class B felony burglary; Class B felony attempted carjacking; two counts of Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon; Class C felony attempted robbery; two counts of Class D felony theft; Class D felony resisting law enforcement; and being a habitual offender.

Eric G. Couthen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A04-1302-CR-65
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed after revocation of probation for conviction of Class C felony intimidation.

Spiros Alatorre v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1301-CR-28
Criminal. Reverses and vacates convictions for Class A felony kidnapping and Class B felony carjacking on double-jeopardy grounds, but finds a 45-year executed sentence for conviction of murder is not inappropriate.

Dellia Castile v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1212-CR-625
Criminal. Affirms conviction and 50-year aggregate sentence for conviction of Class A felony neglect of a dependent and Class B felony neglect of a dependent.

Katherine Cervantes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A04-1301-CR-19
Criminal. Affirms five-year aggregate sentence for conviction of Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Class A misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Jennifer Rose Peverly v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-1303-CR-145
Criminal. Affirms aggregate three-year sentence for conviction of three counts of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT