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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT