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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT