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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT