ILNews

Opinions May 6, 2013

May 6, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

May 3, 2013, Opinions:
Indiana Tax Court

Indiana MHC, LLC v. Scott County Assessor
39T10-1009-TA-52
Tax. Affirms the final determination by the Indiana Board of Tax Review that Indiana MHC failed to prove its 2007 real property assessment was incorrect. The Tax Court found that Indiana MHC’s income capitalization approach did not comply with the generally accepted appraisal principles because it did not consider the occupancy rates of comparable properties in the market.

Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation v. Indiana Dept. of Local Government Finance
49T10-0910-TA-76
Tax. Affirms Department of Local Government Finance final determination denying IndyGo’s request for an excess property tax levy for the 2007 budget year, holding that the final determination was not unlawful, unsupported by the evidence or an abuse of discretion.

Today's Opinions:
Indiana Court of Appeals

Love Jeet Kaur v. State of Indiana
29A05-1208-CR-424
Criminal. Affirms trial court denial of motion to dismiss charges of Class D felony dealing in a synthetic cannabinoid, Class D felony possession of a synthetic cannabinoid, and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance. The panel ruled that Indiana’s synthetic drug law, I.C. § 35-31.5-2-321, was not vague as applied to Kaur and did not represent an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the Board of Pharmacy.

Carol Raper, Executor of the Estate of Timothy Raper v. Jill A. Haber, Darrell Harvey, and Jane Harvey (NFP)
81A01-1206-TR-262
Trust. Dismisses the appeal sua sponte. The trial court’s ruling on Raper’s motion to intervene was not a final judgment under Trial Rule 54(B) or an appealable interlocutory order so the COA does not have jurisdiction and must dismiss.

Bryan Delaney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A01-1209-CR-435
Criminal. Affirms the trial court’s denial of Delaney’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Ruled Delaney’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the charge of sexual misconduct with a minor as a Class B felony implicated neither substantial prejudice nor manifest injustice. Therefore it was within the discretion of the trial court to deny the motion.

Property-Owners Insurance Company v. Grandview One (NFP)
49A05-1205-CT-275
Civil tort. Reverses the trial court’s order entering partial summary judgment in favor of Grandview One and remands the matter for further proceedings. There is a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment with respect to whether the evidence does or does not meet the plain meaning of the term “vacant.”

 The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT