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

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT