ILNews

Opinions April 15, 2013

April 15, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday:
Hamilton County Assessor v. Allisonville Road Development, LLC
49T10-1204-TA-30
Tax.  Affirms Indiana Board of Tax Review’s decision to reduce the assessment of former farm land purchased for redevelopment after finding a previous assessment as commercial land was in error.  The assessor claimed that the board used the wrong version of I.C. 6-1.1-4-12 when it awarded the property the “developer’s discount” for 2002, and that the board erred in determining that the cessation of farming activities was not a “change in use” under the statute.

Monday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Jose Guzman v. State of Indiana
54A01-1209-CR-409
Criminal. Affirms eight-year sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony reckless homicide and the order Guzman pay restitution to the accident victims. The trial court acted within its discretion in ordering the restitution and in sentencing Guzman, and his sentence is not inappropriate.

Serenity Springs, et al. v. The LaPorte County Convention and Visitors Bureau
46A03-1205-MI-214
Miscellaneous. Reverses order permanently enjoining hotel-resort owner Serenity Springs from using the designation “Visit Michigan City LaPorte” and the order Serenity transfer the domain name registration to the LaPorte County Convention and Visitors Bureau. The bureau did not establish that Serenity committed trademark infringement or cybersquatting because it failed to establish that it held a valid and protectable trademark in the designation “Visit Michigan City LaPorte.” Remands with instructions to consider the bureau’s remaining claims. Denies the bureau’s request for appellate attorney fees.

John Roberts v. Stephen Buennagel and Allstate Insurance Company (NFP)
41A01-1206-CT-257
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Roberts’ motion to correct errors following a jury verdict in favor of Buennagel and Allstate on Roberts’ negligence complaint stemming from a car accident.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT