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. Residents can't vote under our current system? Okay, let's replace the system with another system where they can't vote. Yeah, that's the ticket!

  2. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  3. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  4. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  5. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

ADVERTISEMENT