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. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT