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

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT