Court opinions

Express Scripts Incorporated v. Department of State Revenue
19T-TA-18
Tax. Denies the Indiana Department of State Revenue’s motion for partial summary judgment and grants summary judgment to Express Scripts on the issue of whether Express Scripts receives its Indiana income from the retail sale of prescription drugs or from the provision of services. Finds Express Scripts receives its Indiana income from the latter. Remands the matter to the department for action consistent with the opinion.

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

USA v. Ethel Shelton
19-3388
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Senior Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen.

Criminal. Reverses and remands Ethel Shelton’s conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud. Finds that the district court erred when it found that Shelton lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in her office. Finds Stafford Garbutt’s document collection violated Shelton’s Fourth Amendment rights. Finds the warrant would not have been issued in the absence of the information gathered as a result of the unlawful searches. Thus, the district court should have suppressed the evidence obtained from the search authorized by that warrant, and granted Shelton’s motion for a mistrial.

Soraida Flores v. City of South Bend
20-1603
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Judge James T. Moody.
Civil. Reverses the Northern Indiana District Court’s dismissal of Soraida Flores’s lawsuit against former South Bend police officer Justin Gorny and the City of South Bend as personal representative of deceased Erica Flores. Although the district court concluded Gorny did not violate the motorist’s constitutional rights, the 7^th Circuit finds that Flores’s allegations plausibly state claims against both defendants, and she is therefore entitled to proceed with her case. Remands for further proceedings. Circuit Judge Michael B. Brennan writes separately in concurrence.

The following 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline on Monday:
Katherine Black v. Cherie Wrigley
20-2656
Civil. Affirms a jury’s verdict against Katherine Black in her defamation dispute with Cherie Wrigley and denies her request for a new trial based on her assertions that the Northern District Court of Illinois erred in several ways. Finds no errors warrant a reversal of the jury’s verdict.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Karl Woodall v. State of Indiana
20A-CR-00862
Criminal. Affirms Karl Woodall’s murder conviction and the Marion Superior Court’s grant of the State of Indiana’s motion for a mistrial on grounds of jury taint. Finds Woodall was not subjected to procedural double jeopardy upon retrial. Finds the trial court did not commit fundamental error in instructing the jury or in conducting the sentencing hearing.

The following 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
United States of America v. Adonnis Carswell 
20-1036
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. Judge Holly A. Brady.
Criminal. Affirms Adonnis Carswell’s convictions of four drug and firearm offenses, including possession of heroin with intent to distribute. Finds that the judge who issued the search warrant intended for Carswell’s home had a reasonable basis for thinking evidence of drug and firearm crimes was likely to be found there. Also finds the prosecution’s closing arguments were not improper, did not make Carswell’s trial unfair and did not deny him due process of law.  

Indiana Court of Appeals
Juventino V. Ramirez v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-CR-1982
Criminal. Affirms Juventino V. Ramirez’s conviction of Level 4 felony child molesting. Finds the Allen Superior Court’s rulings on Ramirez’s discovery requests were not an abuse of discretion, nor did they violate his constitutional rights. Also finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Ramirez’s motion for a continuance, did not allow him to make an offer of proof of a recording of a forensic interview, allowed a witness to give vouching testimony or in instructing the jury. Finally, finds that even if the trial court abused its discretion in allowing vouching testimony or hearsay, the error was harmless.

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Zachariah Brian Wright v. State of Indiana
20S-LW-260
Life without parole. Affirms the denial of Zachariah Brian Wright’s request to self-represent, and his sentence of life without the possibility of parole plus 18 years for his convictions of murder, Level 3 felony criminal confinement, Level 6 felony theft, Level 5 felony burglary and Level 2 felony attempted burglary. Finds that Wright’s waiver of the right to counsel was knowing and voluntary, but because his waiver was neither unequivocal nor intelligent, the Boone Superior Court properly denied his request. Also finds Wright’s sentence was not inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses or his character. Remands for the correction of a minor oversight in the sentencing order. Justice Mark Massa concurs in result with separate opinion. Justice Geoffrey Slaughter dissents with separate opinion.

Indiana Court of Appeals
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Jennifer Finnerty, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Cullen Finnerty, and Carol Anderson, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Neal Anderson, and Maura Solonoski, Individually, and as Attorney-In-Fact for Andrew Solonoski Jr.
20A-CT-1069
Civil tort. Dismisses the NCAA’s appeal of the denial of its protective order to quash the depositions of Mark Emmert, Donald Remy and Dr. Brian Hainline. Finds the NCAA’s repetitive motion for a protective order/motion to reconsider did not extend the time for an interlocutory appeal of the Marion Superior Court’s denial, so the appeal is untimely. Also finds there are no extraordinarily compelling reasons to consider the merits of the appeal. Judge Elizabeth Tavitas dissents with separate opinion.