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

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