ILNews

Opinions Aug. 25, 2014

August 25, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc.
49S10-1402-TA-79
Tax. Reverses judgment of the Indiana Tax Court in favor of Caterpillar, holding the company may not deduct foreign-source dividend income when calculating net operating losses based on plain statutory meaning. Caterpillar also did not meet its burden to prove the conclusion violated the Foreign Commerce Clause. Remands to the Tax Court with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of the Department of Revenue.

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Barnhart v. State of Indiana
57A04-1312-CR-601
Criminal. Affirms convictions and aggregate 30-year sentence for two counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Holds that any error regarding the trial court’s exclusion of a drug test showing the victim had no marijuana in her system was harmless. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in acknowledging Barnhart had been accused of prior sexual misconduct, and even if the accusations had not been considered, he likely would have received the same advisory concurrent sentences.     

Amanda Kay (Albin) Brasseur v. Gregory Joseph Brasseur (NFP)
42A05-1402-DR-84
Domestic relations. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands order on distributions of marital assets, holding the trial court abused its discretion in assessing the value of a mortgage encumbering the marital residence.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Commitment of G.M. v. Columbus Regional Hospital Mental Health Facility and Dr. Michael Stark (NFP)
03A01-1312-MH-533
Mental health. Affirms order of involuntary commitment.

Karla Hart v. Douglas Kaderabek, M.D. (NFP)
49A02-1312-PL-1036
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Douglas Kaderabek, M.D.

Tiandre Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1401-CR-45
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder.

Holly Richardson v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, as Agent for Deaconess Hospital (NFP)
82A04-1403-SC-109
Small claims. Affirms denial of motion to correct error.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT