ILNews

Opinions March 12, 2012

March 12, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinions were posted after IL deadline Friday:

R.L. Turner Corporation v. Town of Brownsburg
32S01-1109-PL-573
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s grant of a petition for attorney fees to the Town of Brownsburg, rejecting Turner’s argument that the court erred in not entering special findings before awarding fees. Justices Rucker affirmed in part, but dissented in part, writing that he would remand for further proceedings, as the trial record shows no indication of whether Turner’s claims or defenses were frivolous, unreasonable, groundless or otherwise litigated in bad faith. Justice Dickson joined the dissent.

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc.
49S10-1112-TA-683
Tax appeal. Reverses Indiana Tax Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Rent-A-Center East, holding that the taxpayer has the burden of showing a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to unpaid tax, and that upon presenting that evidence the Indiana Department of State Revenue could reply before the Tax Court rules on a motion for summary judgment. Remands to the Tax Court for consideration of motions for summary judgment on their merits, in light of all the designated evidence the parties may tender.

Monday’s opinions:

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor in interest to The Money Store Investment Corp., f/d/b/a First Union Small Business Capital v. Neal A. Summers, et al. (NFP)
02A04-1103-CP-112
Civil plenary. Dismisses appeal, holding that Wells Fargo failed to timely file its notice of appeal.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. 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?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT