ILNews

Opinions May 15, 2014

May 15, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
Hoosier Roll Shop Services, LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
49T10-1104-TA-29
Tax. Grants summary judgment in favor of Hoosier Roll and against the Department of State Revenue. Finds Hoosier Roll produces other tangible personal property when it grinds and calibrates its customers’ work rolls.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Riviera Plaza Investments, LLC and Haresh Shah v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
02A03-1308-MF-323
Mortgage foreclosure.  Affirms summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo with regard to Riviera and enters judgment in favor of Wells Fargo and against Shah in the ongoing collection and foreclosure proceedings against Riviera and Shah. The trial court properly granted Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment against Riviera and its determination that Shah was liable under the terms of the guaranty is not clearly erroneous.

J.H. v. J.K. (NFP)
1A03-1311-JP-459
Juvenile. Affirms order that father pay $70 per month toward the college expenses of his 19-year-old daughter.

Rayterrion Wheeler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1310-CR-391
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Rick Delks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1309-PC-416
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In re the Paternity of D.M.Y.: M.S.R. v. B.Y. (NFP)
34A04-1310-JP-504
Juvenile. Affirms the determination of Michael S. Robinson’s child support arrearage.

Jason Keel v. April Najdowski (NFP)
29A02-1305-DR-463
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Keel’s petition for reinstatement of his parenting time.

Thomas M. Slaats v. Sally E. Slaats n/k/a Sally E. Jaggers-Weber (NFP)
87A01-1311-DR-503
Domestic relation. Affirms modification of father’s child support obligation.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline Thursday. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.

 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT