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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT