Opinions Sept. 17, 2013

September 17, 2013
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
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.
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.
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
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
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed after revocation of probation for conviction of Class C felony intimidation.

Spiros Alatorre v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?