ILNews

Opinions April 1, 2014

April 1, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Bryant E. Wilson v. State of Indiana
27S02-1309-CR-584
Criminal. Reverses trial court denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence and remands for resentencing. Holds that the Indiana Code does not authorize a sentence to be imposed in part as consecutive and in part as concurrent, and orders Wilson resentenced on a rape conviction for an aggregate term not to exceed 50 years in prison.

Indiana Tax Court
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Monday.

Tannins of Indianapolis, LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
49T10-1303-SC-45
Tax. Affirms final determination that Tannins’ purchases of tasting cards for the Indianapolis wine bar it operates, Tastings, are not exempt from use tax under Indiana Code § 6-2.5-5-8(b), the purchase for resale exemption.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael E. McClellan v. State of Indiana
39A04-1305-CR-248
Criminal. Remands to the trial court to hold a new hearing on McClellan’s motion to dismiss. Rules the state should have the opportunity to rebut the presumption of prejudice that its delay in filing charges impaired McClellan’s defense.   

Jeffery Spinks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1307-CR-299
Criminal. Reverses conviction for Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor as an erroneous conviction for which Spinks was not charged but otherwise affirms convictions of three counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting. The aggregate sentence of 45 years in prison is affirmed.

Scriptfleet, Inc., a Florida Corporation f/k/a Network Express, Inc. v. In Touch Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Indiana Corporation as successor in interest to MHP Pharmacy, LLC (NFP)
64A05-1308-PL-393
Civil plenary. Reverses grant of summary judgment in favor of In Touch Pharmaceuticals and remands for proceedings to determine what, if any, contractual obligation InTouch owed to Scriptfleet.

Anthony Taylor v. Mark R. Sevier, Superintendent of Miami Correctional Facility (NFP)
52A04-1306-MI-309
Miscellaneous. Reverses grant of summary disposition in favor of Sevier because the Miami Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Taylor’s post-conviction relief petition. Remands with instructions to transfer the matter to Miami Superior Court.
 
The Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline Tuesday. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions prior to IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT