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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT