ILNews

Opinions April 25, 2014

April 25, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinions were posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Nick Popovich v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
49T10-1010-TA-53
Tax. Involves Popovich’s first motion to compel the Indiana Department of State Revenue to respond to 53 of his discovery requests and the department’s motion for a protective order seeking to protect from disclosure of the information and documents he requested.

Nick Popovich v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
49T10-1010-TA-53
Tax. Denies second motion to compel in its entirety. Popovich sought original documents of the requested documents be brought to the deposition pursuant to Indiana Trial Rules 30(B)(5) and 34. The expectation that the movant will make a reasonable effort to resolve discovery disputes with the opposing party before moving to enforce, modify, or limit discovery holds true even in instances where, like here, the entire discovery process has been imbued with acrimony.

Friday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Marvin Garner v. State of Indiana
49A02-1310-CR-834
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 60-year sentence for four counts of Class A felony child molesting. His offenses were committed against multiple victims and against the same victims repeatedly, and his victims were young and he abused this position of trust.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline Friday. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions 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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT