ILNews

Opinions June 21, 2012

June 21, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court

Indiana Department of Revenue v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
49S10-1107-TA-417
Tax. Reverses Tax Court’s grant of summary judgment to UPS and denial of the department of revenue’s motion as to whether UPS was exempt from the adjusted gross income tax. None of the summary judgment materials presented to the Tax Court and Supreme Court establishes that during the years in question UPINSCO and UPS Re were doing business within the state of Indiana. Because this is a necessary condition in order to be “subject to” the premium tax, UPS failed in its burden of establishing that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Byron Chan v. State of Indiana
49A02-1110-MI-1024
Miscellaneous. Reverses order that Chan’s vehicle be forfeited for the use of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department and sold for the benefit of the Marion County Law Enforcement fund after he was caught shoplifting $97 in goods from Menards. In Indiana statute, “retail or repurchase value” should be read as meaning the price of the goods without the addition of sales tax due on the transaction, so the property Chan stole does not reach the $100 minimum required to forfeit a vehicle.

Walker Whatley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A04-1110-PC-548
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Fernando Padilla-Romo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1107-CR-426
Criminal. Affirms conviction of domestic battery in the presence of a minor as a Class D felony.

Glenda A. Wilson v. Roland B. Wilson, Jr. (NFP)
29A04-1112-DR-666
Domestic relation. Reverses order regarding payment of educational expenses by Roland Wilson Jr. for the parties’ minor daughter. Remands with instructions.

Herbert E. Robertson, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1110-CR-465
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony armed robbery and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Sidney D. Bennett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A04-1111-CR-645
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molestation.

Jeffery Roshell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1108-CR-430
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT