ILNews

Opinions Aug. 7, 2014

August 7, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
Howard County Assessor v. Kokomo Mall, LLC
49T10-1109-TA-56
Tax. Affirms the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review that reduced Kokomo Mall LLC’s commercial property assessments for the 2007, 2008 and 2009 tax years. Court declines to reweigh the evidence presented to the board and rejects the assessor’s claim that the mere presentation of a USPAP appraisal establishes a prima facie case.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Indiana Insurance Company v. Patricia Kopetsky, and KB Home Indiana Inc.
49A02-1304-PL-340
Civil plenary. Grants rehearing to correct a factual error and clarify the original holding. Finds the known claim exclusion applies in this case and that coverage is barred for the second through fourth years, regardless of a jury’s finding of any prior knowledge. Any finding regarding whether George Kopetsky had any knowledge of contamination prior to the first year of insurance coverage applies only to the first year.

Ryan Gold v. Starr Weather
49A02-1311-JP-995
Juvenile. Affirms order approving Weather’s request to relocate and Gold’s motion to modify custody. Finds there is sufficient evidence to support the finding that Weather relocated in order to be close to her immediate and extended family, which is a legitimate purpose. It is well within the discretion of the trial court to place more weight on the evidence that favors the mother as the physical custodian based on the child’s best interests rather than evidence favoring the father based on her efforts to thwart his relationship with his child. Judge Robb concurs in result in a separate opinion.

Rio Michaels v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1311-CR-559
Criminal.  Affirms convictions of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license with a prior felony and Class D felony criminal recklessness.

D'Arcy Lambert-Knight v. John S. Shelhart and Jennifer Villars (NFP)
64A03-1310-CT-408
Civil tort. Affirms court’s conversion of Villars’ motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment.

Jeanne Rippe v. Daniel Rippe (NFP)
17A05-1312-DR-611
Domestic relation. Finds Jeanne Rippe’s challenges to orders from 2011 and 2013 are forfeited or waived. Remands to the trial court with instructions to determine appellate attorney fees for Daniel Rippe because his ex-wife’s appeal is frivolous.
 

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT