Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Monte Murphy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1009-CR-1040
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of receiving a ballot, entered as Class A misdemeanors.
Wilkie Brooks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-278
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement.
Ronald J. Lampitok v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1011-CR-773
Criminal. Reverses conviction of and sentence for carrying a handgun without a license. Finds harmless errors in admitting Exhibit 44 and allowing the state to amend its charging information for Lampitok’s habitual offender charge.
Steven D. Hadley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A05-1106-CR-299
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony criminal confinement while armed with a deadly weapon and Class B felony criminal confinement.
Janet Greenwell v. Gregory J. Loomis, M.D. and Matthew B. Kern, M.D. (NFP)
82A04-1003-CT-173
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of doctors Gregory Loomis and Matthew Kern on Greenwell’s medical malpractice complaint.
Stan Rekewig LLC, Stanley Rekewig, Susan K. Rekewig, et al. v. Dickason Truck & Equipment, Inc., n/k/a FSD Enterprises, Inc., Frank W. Dickason Trust Number One, et al. (NFP)
90A02-1012-CC-1371
Civil collection. Affirms judgment of foreclosure of real estate in favor of Dickason Truck Equipment.
Indiana Tax Court
Jaklin Idris and Dariana Kamenova v. Marion County Assessor
49T10-1108-TA-49
Tax. Denies the assessor’s motion in its entirety to dismiss Idris’ and Kamenova’s tax appeal. Idris’ reliance on the clerk as the means to effect service did not run afoul of statutory requirements for initiating an original tax appeal under Indiana Code 6-1.1-15-5 because that statute recites no preference for any particular method of service. While Idris’ method of service admittedly did not comply with Tax Court Rule 16(C), it was consistent with the spirit and purpose of the rule.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.