ILNews

Opinions March 29, 2013

March 29, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
49T10-0812-TA-70
Tax. Grants summary judgment in favor of Caterpillar Inc. Finds that Caterpillar’s foreign source dividends are deductible in calculating its Indiana net operating losses, including those available for carryover as a deduction from taxable income in future years under I.C. 6-3-2-2.6.

Friday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Phillip Jackson and Deborah Jackson v. Bank of America Corp., et al.
12-3338
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of the Jacksons’ action to quiet title and claims that all or some of the defendants negligently evaluated the Jacksons’ ability to repay the loan and that the loan contract was substantively and procedurally unconscionable. The Jacksons can’t show that the institutions actually owed them a duty, and they failed to allege facts that would support any unconscionability determination in Indiana.

United States of America v. Aswan D. Scott

12-2555
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Affirms denial of Scott’s motion to reduce his sentence after pleading guilty to distribution of 50 or more grams of crack cocaine. Scott was not eligible for a reduced sentence.
 
The Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Tax Court were closed Friday in observance of Good Friday.
 

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