ILNews

Opinions July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday.
Indiana Tax Court
Lake County Assessor v. Amoco Sulfur Recovery Corp., BP Products North America, Inc.
49T10-0909-TA-58
Tax. Affirms summary judgment for BP and denial for the Lake County assessor regarding BP’s personal property assessments for 2004 to 2006. Affirms the Indiana Board’s conclusion that BP’s returns substantially complied with the “nature” requirement of both Indiana Code Section 6-1.1-3-9 and 50 IAC 4.2-2-5, and that it was well reasoned, based on substantial evidence, and consistent with the law.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Crisis Connection, Inc. v. Ronald Keith Fromme
19A05-0910-CR-602
Criminal. Affirms order Crisis Connections produce records to the court for an in camera review. An in camera review properly balances Fromme’s constitutional rights and the victims’ interest in privacy.

City of Greenwood, et al. v. Town of Bargersville, Indiana
41A05-0912-CV-684
Civil. Reverses grant of summary judgment for Bargersville in which the court upheld the town’s annexation of 1,847 acres within 3 miles of Greenwood’s city limits and voided Greenwood’s attempted annexation of the land. Greenwood has standing to bring a declaratory judgment action. Reveres because as a matter of law fewer than 51 percent of the territory’s landowners consented to Bargersville’s annexation pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36-43-9. Remands.

Kelly Lee Muncy, Kendra Marie Vondersaar, et al. v. Harlan Bakeries, Inc.
32A04-1001-PL-9
Civil plenary. Affirms findings of fact and conclusions of law entered after remand proceedings, adjusting the prior damages award and ordering that Harlan Bakeries abate certain encroachments. The trial court did not exceed the scope of issues available on remand and the Muncys waived the issue of attorney fees.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of B.G., et al.; M.G., and D.G. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
82A05-1002-JT-60
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jamestown Homes, Inc. v. Ronald L. Comer (NFP)
02A03-1001-SC-6
Small claim. Affirms grant of Comer’s motion to correct errors.

Teresa M. Mason v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1003-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony reckless homicide.

Indiana Tax Court
AWHR America's Water Heater Rentals, LLC v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue (NFP)
49T10-0710-TA-50
Tax. Affirms the Department of State Revenue’s assessment of sales tax liability against AWHR.
 

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