Opinions Dec. 10, 2012

December 10, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday.
Indiana Tax Court

Miller Pipeline Corporation v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue (NFP)
Tax. Denies Department of State Revenue’s motion for summary judgment on Miller Pipeline Corp.’s appeal of the department’s final determination denying its claim for refund of gross retail (sales) and use tax paid between 2005 and 2007.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

David Vance v. Francisco Lozano, et al.
Small claim. Reverses judgment in favor of Rock Solid and Lozano on Vance’s breach of contract claim. Finds the parties entered into an enforceable settlement agreement.

Edward Gilliland v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms denial of Gilliland’s motion to dismiss the charging information charging Gilliland with two counts of Class B misdemeanor failure to report child abuse or neglect, but finds the state does not need to amend the information to omit any offense alleged prior to Oct. 5, 2007. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Bailey concurs in part and dissents in part.

Darrell Woodruff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony criminal recklessness and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.R., et al. (Minor Children); and T.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms finding that the four minor children were children in need of services.

Henry Lee Smith, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony battery.

In Re: the Paternity of E.M.T.; C.J.G. v. M.C.T. (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms denial of father’s request to change E.M.T.’s surname.

Darnell C. Miller, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Paul Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony robbery.

Stacey Huddleston, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for murder.

Guardianship of L.R.T. and A.J.B.; R.L. and P.L. (Guardians) v. A.B. and R.B. (Parents)
Guardianship. Affirms order terminating guardianship of L.T. and A.J.B. upon the motion of mother A.B.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well