ILNews

Opinions Aug. 20, 2012

August 20, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday:

Indiana Tax Court

Wireless Advocates, LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
49T10-1109-TA-60
Tax. Denies the Indiana Department of State Revenue’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Wireless Advocate’s petition, which was originally filed by a member of the company instead of an attorney, does not deserve the terminal result of dismissal. The department must file its answer within 30 days.

Monday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Joshua Resendez v. Brian Smith
11-1121
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which Resendez claimed the state denied him his constitutional right to counsel in a sentence correction proceeding under I.C. 35-38-1-15.  His claims may not be presented via that statute as his motion is a collateral challenge to his sentence.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
James E. True v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-1110-CR-532
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy due to double jeopardy violation and orders conviction vacated. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

Cynthia Sue Damron v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC (NFP)
20A03-1110-MF-514
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms denial of Damron’s Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment and subsequent motion to correct error.

In Re the Paternity of A.W., T.W. v. J.P. (NFP)
68A05-1202-JP-59
Juvenile paternity. Affirms order granting father J.P. custody.

James Johns v. Pike County Commissioners (NFP)
63A01-1112-MI-607
Miscellaneous. Affirms judgment on the pleadings as to Johns’ claim concerning a road closure agreement and dismisses the rest of the appeal as moot.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT