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

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT