ILNews

Opinions June 9, 2014

June 9, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline June 6:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Matthew Whitfield v. International Truck and Engine Corp.
13-1876
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Affirms in part and reverses in part ruling in favor of International Truck and Engine Corp. on Whitfield’s action alleging discrimination in failure to hire and violations of the Civil Rights Act. The District Court ignored some evidence or made conclusions not supported by the evidence. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Tax Court
Housing Partnerships, Inc. v. Tom Owens, Bartholomew County Assessor
49T10-1005-TA-23
Tax. Affirms Indiana Board of Tax Review’s holding that for the 2006 tax year, Housing Partnerships Inc. failed to show that its rental properties qualified for the charitable purposes exemption provided in I.C. 6-1.1-10-16. Housing Partnerships has not demonstrated that the final determination is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or contrary to the law.

June 9
Indiana Court of Appeals

Michael Dustin Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A01-1308-CR-350
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in a Schedule I controlled substance.

Jarod G. Allred v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A01-1309-CR-393
Criminal. Reverses two convictions of Class B felony dealing in a Schedule III controlled substance. Judge Bailey dissents.

Nathaniel Baston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A05-1311-CR-559
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

In the Matter of the Adoption of H.S. and D.S., R.S. v. V.C. and M.C. and D.S. and S.S. (NFP)
85A02-1311-AD-996
Adoption. Affirms order granting petitions to adopt H.S. and D.S.

In the Matter of Commitment of E.L., E.L. v. Indiana University Health-Bloomington Hospital and Terri Klingelhoefer, MA, LSW (NFP)
53A05-1311-MH-571
Mental health. Dismisses appeal of temporary involuntary commitment since the commitment ended Jan. 13.

Bageera Taylor, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A04-1307-CR-328
Criminal. Reverses sentence for Class D felonies strangulation and residential entry and remands for further proceedings. Judge Robb dissents.

The Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Tax Court posted no opinions Monday prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions Monday before 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. 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