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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT