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. 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