ILNews

Opinions Oct. 9, 2013

October 9, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Douglas G. Kildsig v. Warrick County Assessor
82T10-1101-TA-2
Tax. Reverses Indiana Board of Tax Review’s determination that the burden-shifting rule contained in Indiana Code 6-1.1-15-1(p) did not apply to its proceedings. The rule applies to the entire appeals process. Affirms that a portion of Douglas G. Kildsig’s land was properly classified as residential excess acreage for the 2009 tax year. The assessor presented evidence to support Kildsig did not use his land for agricultural purposes.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Specialty Foods of Indiana, Inc., d/b/a Jersey Mike's Subs v. City of South Bend and Century Center Board of Managers
71A05-1302-MI-95
Miscellaneous. Affirms order denying Specialty Foods of Indiana’s complaint for declaratory judgment as to its right to continue operating its business in the college Football Hall of Fame in South Bend under a use management and operations agreement. The force majeure provision of the agreement to be exclusive provider of food and beverages for the College Football Hall of Fame in South Bend is applicable to excuse the Century Center Board of Manager’s nonperformance of its obligations under the agreement because the closure of the Hall of Fame constitutes a “reason not within the reasonable control of Century Center.”

In Re: the Marriage of L.C. v. T.M.
32A01-1303-DR-91
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of mother’s request to modify custody. She presented sufficient evidence of changed circumstances due to participation in a travel soccer league and that modification is in the children’s best interests. Remands for an order to be entered that modifies the custody arrangement in accordance with the children’s best interests.

Custom Radio Corp., Custom Management Group, Inc., Richard Yarger and Robert O'Brien v. Actuaries & Benefit Consultants, Inc., and John M. Fogle
32A01-1303-CC-143
Civil collection. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Fogle and Actuaries & Benefit Consultants Inc. in a suit filed alleging negligent provision of consulting services and breach of oral contract. There is a genuine issue of fact as to whether the appellants’ knew or could have known that their Welfare Benefit Plans were noncompliant with federal law and that their plan contributions were retroactively taxable by April 30, 2004.

Jesse Doyle, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1303-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms denial of request to withdraw guilty plea and eight-year sentence for Class C felony incest.

Derek Dewitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1301-CR-33
Criminal. Affirms imposition of consecutive sentences for Class A felony attempted murder and murder convictions.

Darrell Hix v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1303-CR-331
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Jeffrey Cook v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1211-CR-608
Criminal. Affirms refusal by trial court to give Cook’s proffered jury instruction on self-defense because the evidence didn’t support giving it, and affirms convictions of murder, Class B felony prisoner in possession of a dangerous device or material and class D felony criminal gang activity.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT