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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT