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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT