ILNews

Opinions March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Scott C. Cole and Jennifer A. Cole v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
10-2194
U.S. Tax Court, Judge Diane L. Kroupa.
Tax. Affirms finding that the Coles omitted more than $1.2 million of income and more than $1.3 million of self-employment income from their 2001 joint tax return and that they fraudulently avoided tax liability. The Coles did not show clear error in the Tax Court’s finding that because they did not produce credible documentary or other evidence showing otherwise, that the commissioner’s reconstruction of their income was “reasonable and substantially accurate.” The Coles failed to show that the Tax Court clearly erred in finding that Scott may not avoid tax liability on his income by assigning it to another corporation when substantively his Bentley Group ownership never changed as evidenced by his continued dominion and control over the partnership’s funds.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Sean T. Ryan v. Dee Anna Ryan
71A03-1009-DR-453
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Sean Ryan’s motion for relief under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(8) regarding the prices set for the sale of real estate as listed in the settlement agreement. The trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for relief from judgment without hearing pertinent evidence. Remands with instructions.

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Metro School District of Lawrence Twp., et al.
49A02-1004-PL-427
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis and Joseph Piper and other parents’ requests for declaratory and injunctive relief and the judgments in favor of Metropolitan School District of Lawrence Township and Concetta Raimondi, as superintendent of the school district, in a suit challenging the termination of a shuttle bus service paid for by the township to the private schools in the township. Indiana Code Section 20-7-11-1 doesn’t mandate that the school district must provide special school bus routes and free shuttle bus services not already in effect for the sole benefit of nonpublic school students.

Arnaldo Trabucco v. Pamela Trabucco
03A05-1003-DR-195
Domestic relation. Affirms the trial court’s use of income averaging to compute Arnaldo Trabucco’s child support obligation. The trial court did not err in using an income averaging approach to calculate his weekly gross income for child support and in including funds set aside for their son’s college and other accounts within the marital estate. Remands with instructions to consider whether the Home Federal IRA and IRA #1491 were consolidated into another IRA and therefore should not have been counted separately. Remands to also provide a detailed explanation of how the trial court arrived at the specific value assigned to a coin collection.

Capitol Construction Services v. Farah, LLC
49A04-1006-PL-354
Civil plenary. Affirms order denying Capitol Construction Services’ motion to dismiss demand for arbitration in favor of Farah LLC. Farah has not waived its right to arbitrate and equity favors the result reached by the lower court.

Steven A. Wright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1004-CR-233
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony and Class C felony child molesting.  

G.F. v. R.F. (NFP)
26A01-1008-DR-395
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of father’s petition for modification of child custody.

Cynthia Taylor v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc. (NFP)
49A04-1008-PL-499
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Community Hospitals of Indiana after Taylor fell and was injured in the hospital.

Ashley Straub v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A05-1007-CR-458
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of dealing in a schedule I controlled substance as Class B felonies, and one count of Class D felony possession of a schedule I controlled substance.

Alois Cronauer v. Starke Co. Jail, et al. (NFP)
75A03-1009-PL-496
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of motion for relief under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B).

Kristin M. Escamilla v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1009-CR-570
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in narcotics.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court dismissed one appeal for the week ending March 25.
 

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT