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

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. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT