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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT