ILNews

Opinions Dec. 30, 2013

December 30, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court was posted after IL deadline Friday:
Joseph & Jeanne Hutcherson v. Robin L. Ward, Hamilton County Assessor
49T10-1302-TA-10
Tax. Denies Hamilton County assessor’s motion to dismiss the Hutchersons’ claims and reverses the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s determination that the Hutchersons’ petitions to correct error for 2004 through 2007 were untimely. Finds the Petition to Correct Error Statute contains no provisions limiting the length of time a taxpayer has to file a petition. Remands for action consistent with the court’s opinion.

Monday's opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
Rico Nathaniel Morst v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1305-CR-226
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Morst’s probation.

Jeremiah Joseph Skirvin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1305-CR-232
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence of 55 years for two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor, as Class B felonies; one count of sexual misconduct with a minor, as a Class C felony; and being adjudicated as a habitual offender.

State of Indiana v. Tammy Sue Harper (NFP)
79A02-1303-CR-272
Criminal. Reverses order from the Tippecanoe Circuit Court modifying the sentence of Harper. Although the prosecuting attorney did not tell the trial court whether it approved of or objected to the sentence modification, the COA held that according to the “clear language” of Indiana Code 35-38-1-17, the prosecutor must approve of a sentence modification if the convicted person has served more than 365 days of his or her sentence.

George Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-326
Criminal. Affirms conviction of attempted murder as a Class A felony.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.M. (Minor Child) and D.D. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A05-1305-JT-258
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father D.D.’s parental rights.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court did not post any opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not submit any Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT