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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT