ILNews

Opinions June 4, 2012

June 4, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday:
Fresenius USA Marketing, Inc. v. Ind. Dept. of State Revenue
49T10-1008-TA-45
Tax. Denies the Department of State Revenue’s motion to dismiss Fresenius USA Marketing’s appeal of the determination denying the company’s claim for a refund of gross retail (sales) and use tax collected on its sales of dialysis equipment and paid to the department between Jan. 1, 2004, and Oct. 31, 2007. The department’s claim that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal is without merit.

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

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
R. Bruce Wallace v. Alliance Environmental, Inc. and Ruth Brown (NFP)

49A04-1111-CC-665
Civil collection. Affirms trial court’s recalculation of damages to Brown for Wallace’s breach of fiduciary duty.

KMC Real Estate Investors, LLC, George L. Alcorn, David Berry, David Britt, Abdul G. Buridi, Jeffrey Campbell, Keith Carter, et al. v. RL BB Financial, LLC (NFP)
10A05-1109-MF-501
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of RL BB Financial in its suit seeking to enforce each doctor’s individual guarantees.

Alfonso Menchaca v. Elias Terrazas (NFP)
45A03-1109-PL-415
Civil plenary. Affirms partial summary judgment for Terrazas in an action to seek repayment of amount Menchaca owes Terrazas pursuant to a promissory note and remands for further proceedings.

 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT