ILNews

Opinions Aug. 22, 2014

August 22, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Tax Court
Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc. v. Marion County Assessor
49T10-1201-TA-1
Property tax. Affirms Indiana Board of Tax Review finding that Indianapolis Racquet Club Inc. failed to establish a prima facie case that its 2002 assessments were excessive or that they were not uniform and equal.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael W. Cash v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1402-CR-94
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Cleveland Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1312-CR-508
Criminal. Dismisses as untimely filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Erik A. Lenning v. Wendy K. Short (NFP)
49A02-1312-DR-1009
Domestic relation. Affirms order of custody in favor of Wendy K. Short.

Corey A. Craig v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1311-PC-568
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Tiese Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1312-CR-1066
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor prostitution and Class C misdemeanor public nudity.

Jihand Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1401-CR-6
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Elias Terrazas v. Alfonso Menchaca (NFP)
45A03-1309-PL-382
Civil plenary. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. Majority affirms judgment in favor of Menchaca on his counterclaim and denial of Terrazas’ request for attorney fees. Reverses determination that Terrazas was entitled to set off half the rent collected after June 2010 against the judgment in favor of Menchaca. Remands to the trial court to correct the amount of judgment in favor of Menchaca and to calculate post-judgment interest owed ot Terrazas. Judge Paul Mathias dissents from the majority conclusion that the agreement between Menchaca and Terrazas is enforceable and from the majority conclusion that Terrazas should not receive credit in the amount of half the rental income Menchaca received.

Sammie L. Booker-El v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1312-CR-1012
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of child-molesting convictions as an unauthorized successive petition for post-conviction relief.

In Re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Jac.B., Je.B., Jam.B., M.H., and A.B. (Minor Children) and B.B. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

33A01-1401-JT-40
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Eddie T. Crider v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1401-CR-11
Criminal. Affirms denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea on a charge of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT