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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT