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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT