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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT