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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT