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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Stochel was opposing counsel to me in several federal cases (including a jury trial before Judge Tinder) here in SDIN. He is a very competent defense and trial lawyer who knows federal civil procedure and consumer law quite well. Bob gave us a run for our money when he appeared on a case.

  2. Awesome, Brian! Very proud of you and proud to have you as a partner!

  3. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  4. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  5. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

ADVERTISEMENT