ILNews

Court grants 5 transfers, denies 1

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to take five cases, but declined to hear a judicial review case involving a transfer tax.

Justices denied transfer of LHT Capital LLC v. Indiana Horse Racing Commission, et al., No. 49A02-0712-CV-1149. The Indiana Court of Appeals had decided the case in August and denied rehearing later last year, affirming a decision of Marion Superior Judge Gerald Zore's dismissal of the complaint in favor of the state commission on grounds that LHT didn't exhaust all its administrative remedies when it challenged the commission's rules and regulations.

The case stems from an emergency rule that led to a $9 million fee as part of a deal to sell off a minority interest in Indiana Downs horse racing track in Shelbyville. After lawmakers allowed slot machines at the horse racing casinos in 2007, the Indiana Horse Racing Commission, which reviews slot machine licensing, adopted an emergency rule allowing it to impose ownership transfer fees. The commission imposed a $9 million fee on LHT, and the company paid the fee in order to move ahead with the minority ownership transfer before a Nov. 1, 2007, deadline to pay a license fee to add slot machines. But the company objected to the validity of the emergency rule and subsequent fee, which it claimed was a "transfer tax" and wasn't authorized by legislators. The company ultimately sought judicial review, but the judiciary decided the company hadn't exhausted all the administrative options.

The cases that did get transferred included a suit filed by parents against manufacturers of a measuring cup for medicine after their son died from an overdose, and one challenging a trial court's decision to exclude the results of a breathalyzer test because it showed the wrong time of day.

- Jim Kovach v. Caligor Midwest, et al., 49A04-0707-CV-406. Two petitions were granted in this case filed by Jim and Jill Kovach following the death of their 9-year-old son from asphyxia due to an opiate overdose. The Kovachs alleged the nurse using a measuring cup manufactured by the defendants gave their son more than the recommended dosage. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment with respect to the parents' action of implied warrant of fitness for a particular purpose under the Uniform Commercial Code and that the trial court didn't abuse its discretion by admitting testimony of an expert witness who is a pharmacist. It reversed the grant of summary judgment to all the defendants with respect to the Kovachs' arguments under the Product Liability Act and the implied warranty of merchantability under the UCC. Chief Judge John Baker dissented, believing the Kovachs failed to show that the nurse's actions were the result of a measuring error.

- State of Indiana v. Jason Cioch, No. 79A05-0804-CR-218. The Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression of evidence of Jason Cioch's breathalyzer test because the printout contained the incorrect time of day due to the switch to Daylight Saving Time. The person who administered the test noticed the discrepancy, and the arresting officer noted it in his incident report, but the appellate court found the state failed to meet its burden of establishing a foundation for admitting the evidence. The statutes and regulations regarding the administration of the breath test and the admissibility of its results don't expressly contemplate the use of outside evidence to supplement the evidence ticket.

- Anita Inlow v. Jason Inlow, No. 29A02-0712-CV-1039. The appellate court upheld the trial court's approval of money received in a wrongful death suit to be used to reimburse the deceased man's estate for funeral and burial expenses. Anita Inlow, the widow who paid for those expenses and received reimbursement from the estate, argued the wrongful death award wasn't itemized to include a portion for funeral expenses so the estate shouldn't be reimbursed. Judge Melissa May dissented, writing the statute specifically addressing wrongful death awards should control.

- R.Y. (mother) v. Marion County Department of Child Services, No. 49A02-0804-JV-394. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of R.Y.'s parental rights to her son. It found the Department of Child Services proved by clear and convincing evidence a reasonable probability R.Y. hadn't resolved the condition that resulted in her son's removal and termination of parental rights was in her son's best interest. The Court of Appeals also affirmed she failed to show DCS didn't make reasonable efforts for her son's return and that her son is a CHINS because R.Y. is incarcerated and failed to make arrangements for his care.

- Elizabeth Thomas v. Blackford County Area Board of Zoning Appeals, No. 05A04-0711-CV-731. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Elizabeth Thomas' petition for writ of certiorari from the Blackford County BZA and remanded to afford the parties an opportunity to complete their presentation of evidence and to render a decision on the merits. The Court of Appeals found the evidence of the case established an issue of fact as to whether Thomas will suffer unpleasant odors and loss of property value if a confined feeding operation goes in a half mile from her property.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If real money was spent on this study, what a shame. And if some air-head professor tries to use this to advance a career, pity the poor student. I am approaching a time that i (and others around me) should be vigilant. I don't think I'm anywhere near there yet, but seeing the subject I was looking forward to something I might use to look for some benchmarks. When finally finding my way to the hidden questionnaire all I could say to myself was...what a joke. Those are open and obvious signs of any impaired lawyer (or non-lawyer, for that matter), And if one needs a checklist to discern those tell-tale signs of impairment at any age, one shouldn't be practicing law. Another reason I don't regret dropping my ABA membership some number of years ago.

  2. The case should have been spiked. Give the kid a break. He can serve and maybe die for Uncle Sam and can't have a drink? Wow. And they won't even let him defend himself. What a gross lack of prosecutorial oversight and judgment. WOW

  3. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  4. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  5. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

ADVERTISEMENT