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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT