ILNews

Opinions June 17, 2010

June 17, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Wednesday.
Indiana Tax Court

Mirant Sugar Creek, LLC v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
71T10-0803-TA-18
Tax. Denies in part Mirant’s cross-motion for summary judgment on whether Mirant obtained a ruling from the Department of State Revenue providing that it wasn’t subject to the Utility Services Use Tax. The department’s denial of Mirant’s claim wasn’t precluded by Indiana Code Section 6-8.1-3-3. Affirms in part Mirant’s cross-motion for summary judgment on whether the company’s purchases of natural gas was subject to the USUT during the period at issue. Its purchases weren’t subject to the tax pursuant to I.C. sections 6-2.3-3-5 and 6-2.3-5.5-4(2). The department is ordered to refund Mirant the USUT taxes it paid for the period at issue.

Mirant Sugar Creek, LLC v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue (NFP)

71T10-0803-TA-18
Tax. Denies the Department of State Revenue’s motion to strike in its entirety the affidavit of Mirant’s senior tax analyst and three pages of e-mails between the analyst and a tax analyst with the state department.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Russel Howard v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
87A01-0910-CV-512
Civil. Reverses grant of American Family’s motion to substitute the underinsured driver as the sole defendant at trial in Howard’s suit following an accident. Indiana law does not allow the underinsured driver’s substitution as a nominal defendant in these circumstances.

William B. Jones v. State of Indiana
73A01-0911-CR-532
Criminal. Affirms conviction of resisting law enforcement and finding to be a habitual offender. A gaming agent of the Indiana Gaming Commission constitutes a law enforcement officer for purposes of the offense of resisting law enforcement.

Medical Realty Associates, LLC, et al. v. D.A. Dodd, Inc., et al.
45A03-0909-CV-426
Civil. Reverses order denying Medical Realty Associates and Hasse Construction Co.’s motion to compel arbitration and request to stay the mechanic’s lien foreclosure action initiated by D.A. Dodd, and declaring the arbitration unavailable for a claim brought by Korellis Roofing.  By the clear unambiguous language of the Dodd Subcontracts, Hasse is given the option to require arbitration of any or all of Dodd’s claims, including those against MRA and Pinnacle Hospital. The trial court ruled prematurely that Korellis cannot be compelled to arbitrate. Remands for further proceedings.

W.H. v. State of Indiana
49A02-0912-JV-1166
Juvenile. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence and adjudication for Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. Finds that W.H.’s detention was supported by reasonable suspicion and did not offend his federal constitutional rights. Holds that the stop did not violate W.H.’s state constitutional protections, as the level of suspicion and extent of law enforcement needs outweighed the degree of intrusion.

Burl E. and Carolyn S. Grayson v. United Federal Savings & Loan Association of Crawfordsville, Ind. (NFP)
54A04-1002-MF-114
Civil. Affirms judgment for Union Federal Savings in the Graysons’ counterclaim seeking damages for Union Federal’s disposition of personal property as to which the Graysons were junior holders of a secured interest.

Patricia Garrison v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-0910-CR-568
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following revocation of probation.

Daniel Mojica, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Felix Mojica, Jr., Deceased v. Hector Rosario, et al. (NFP)
45A03-0903-CV-116
Civil. Affirms jury verdict in favor of Rosario and the City of East Chicago in Mojica’s suit following the shooting death of Mojica.

Paul Roell v. American Senior Communities, et al. (NFP)
20A03-1001-CC-7
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of American Senior Communities in Roell’s suit that he was discharged in retaliation.

S.P. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-0912-EX-1245
Civil. Affirms S.P. is not entitled to unemployment benefits.

Byron D. Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-0904-CR-182
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to dealing in cocaine, one as a Class A felony and one as a Class B felony.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


 

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT