ILNews

Opinions Aug. 19, 2011

August 19, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Indiana Tax Court
Miller Brewing Company v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
49T10-0607-TA-69
Tax. Grants summary judgment for Miller Brewing Co. and against the Department of State Revenue. For the years at issue, Miller did nothing more than follow the law and its carrier-pickup sales were not Indiana sales and therefore not allocable to Indiana.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
George A. Feuston v. State of Indiana
38A02-1011-CR-1175
Criminal. Affirms denial of Feuston’s motion for discharge of his Class D felony theft charge in Jay County. He caused the delay in the case by absconding and failing to appear at his pretrial conference. Chief Judge Robb concurs in a separate opinion.

S.W. v. E.W. (NFP)

49A02-1104-DR-367
Domestic relation. Affirms in part and reverses in part the dissolution order modifying father E.W.’s child support obligation following a hearing. Remands with instructions to enter an order providing that mother S.W. retain the annual tax exemption for the child.

Zachary Wolfe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1011-CR-1284
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Wolfe serve previously suspended sentence.

Anthony Hollowell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1012-CR-736
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Crystal A. Ridgeway v. Kinser Group II, LLC, et al. (NFP)
53A01-1012-CT-624
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Kaitlynn Sturgis on Ridgeway’s complaint alleging false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and defamation. Remands for further proceedings.

Theodore Schwartz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A04-1102-CR-109
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary, two counts of Class C felony robbery, Class D felony residential entry, Class D felony auto theft, and Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Gary W. Moody v. City of Franklin (NFP)
41A05-1011-PL-693
Civil plenary. Dismisses appeal of order denying motion for an injunction following a hearing.

Donald Huesing v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1316
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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