ILNews

Opinions Dec. 10, 2012

December 10, 2012
Keywords
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)
49T10-1012-TA-64
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.
02A03-1203-SC-142
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
46A03-1202-CR-97
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)
49A02-1203-CR-247
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)
52A02-1205-JC-388
Juvenile. Affirms finding that the four minor children were children in need of services.

Henry Lee Smith, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1204-CR-148
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony battery.

In Re: the Paternity of E.M.T.; C.J.G. v. M.C.T. (NFP)
48A02-1203-JP-260
Juvenile. Affirms denial of father’s request to change E.M.T.’s surname.

Darnell C. Miller, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1110-PC-703
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Paul Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1205-CR-223
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony robbery.

Stacey Huddleston, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1204-CR-152
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)
39A04-1208-GU-398
Guardianship. Affirms order terminating guardianship of L.T. and A.J.B. upon the motion of mother A.B.
 

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. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

ADVERTISEMENT