ILNews

Opinions May 6, 2013

May 6, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

May 3, 2013, Opinions:
Indiana Tax Court

Indiana MHC, LLC v. Scott County Assessor
39T10-1009-TA-52
Tax. Affirms the final determination by the Indiana Board of Tax Review that Indiana MHC failed to prove its 2007 real property assessment was incorrect. The Tax Court found that Indiana MHC’s income capitalization approach did not comply with the generally accepted appraisal principles because it did not consider the occupancy rates of comparable properties in the market.

Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation v. Indiana Dept. of Local Government Finance
49T10-0910-TA-76
Tax. Affirms Department of Local Government Finance final determination denying IndyGo’s request for an excess property tax levy for the 2007 budget year, holding that the final determination was not unlawful, unsupported by the evidence or an abuse of discretion.

Today's Opinions:
Indiana Court of Appeals

Love Jeet Kaur v. State of Indiana
29A05-1208-CR-424
Criminal. Affirms trial court denial of motion to dismiss charges of Class D felony dealing in a synthetic cannabinoid, Class D felony possession of a synthetic cannabinoid, and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance. The panel ruled that Indiana’s synthetic drug law, I.C. § 35-31.5-2-321, was not vague as applied to Kaur and did not represent an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the Board of Pharmacy.

Carol Raper, Executor of the Estate of Timothy Raper v. Jill A. Haber, Darrell Harvey, and Jane Harvey (NFP)
81A01-1206-TR-262
Trust. Dismisses the appeal sua sponte. The trial court’s ruling on Raper’s motion to intervene was not a final judgment under Trial Rule 54(B) or an appealable interlocutory order so the COA does not have jurisdiction and must dismiss.

Bryan Delaney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A01-1209-CR-435
Criminal. Affirms the trial court’s denial of Delaney’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Ruled Delaney’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the charge of sexual misconduct with a minor as a Class B felony implicated neither substantial prejudice nor manifest injustice. Therefore it was within the discretion of the trial court to deny the motion.

Property-Owners Insurance Company v. Grandview One (NFP)
49A05-1205-CT-275
Civil tort. Reverses the trial court’s order entering partial summary judgment in favor of Grandview One and remands the matter for further proceedings. There is a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment with respect to whether the evidence does or does not meet the plain meaning of the term “vacant.”

 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.

 

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