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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT