ILNews

Opinions Dec. 10, 2012

December 10, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday.
Indiana Tax Court

Miller Pipeline Corporation v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue (NFP)
49T10-1012-TA-64
Tax. Denies Department of State Revenue’s motion for summary judgment on Miller Pipeline Corp.’s appeal of the department’s final determination denying its claim for refund of gross retail (sales) and use tax paid between 2005 and 2007.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

David Vance v. Francisco Lozano, et al.
02A03-1203-SC-142
Small claim. Reverses judgment in favor of Rock Solid and Lozano on Vance’s breach of contract claim. Finds the parties entered into an enforceable settlement agreement.

Edward Gilliland v. State of Indiana
46A03-1202-CR-97
Criminal. Affirms denial of Gilliland’s motion to dismiss the charging information charging Gilliland with two counts of Class B misdemeanor failure to report child abuse or neglect, but finds the state does not need to amend the information to omit any offense alleged prior to Oct. 5, 2007. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Bailey concurs in part and dissents in part.

Darrell Woodruff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-CR-247
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony criminal recklessness and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.R., et al. (Minor Children); and T.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
52A02-1205-JC-388
Juvenile. Affirms finding that the four minor children were children in need of services.

Henry Lee Smith, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1204-CR-148
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony battery.

In Re: the Paternity of E.M.T.; C.J.G. v. M.C.T. (NFP)
48A02-1203-JP-260
Juvenile. Affirms denial of father’s request to change E.M.T.’s surname.

Darnell C. Miller, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1110-PC-703
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Paul Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1205-CR-223
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony robbery.

Stacey Huddleston, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1204-CR-152
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for murder.

Guardianship of L.R.T. and A.J.B.; R.L. and P.L. (Guardians) v. A.B. and R.B. (Parents)
39A04-1208-GU-398
Guardianship. Affirms order terminating guardianship of L.T. and A.J.B. upon the motion of mother A.B.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT