ILNews

Opinions Nov. 6, 2012

November 6, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals released no Indiana opinions before IL deadline. State courts are closed Tuesday for Election Day.

The following opinions were issued after IL deadline Monday:
Indiana Supreme Court
State of Indiana v. Elvis Holtsclaw

49S02-1205-CR-264
Criminal. Reverses dismissal of state’s notice of appeal and remands to the Court of Appeals for consideration of its merits, holding that the appeal is timely under Appellate Rule 9.

Elmer J. Bailey v. State of Indiana
49S02-1204-CR-234
Criminal. Reverses Court of Appeals and affirms trial court conviction of two counts of Class D felony domestic battery and two-year sentence, holding that physical pain is sufficient to prove the statutory element of bodily injury. The court rejected the COA’s holding that pain “must be sufficient to rise to a level of ‘impairment of physical condition’” to justify the conviction.

Indiana Tax Court
Shelbyville MHPI, LLC v. Anne Thurston, in her official capacity as Assessor, Shelby County
49T10-1003-TA-14
Tax. Affirms Indiana Board’s decision to uphold Shelby County assessor’s assessment of property owned by Shelbyville MHPI, LLC. The court found MHPI was incorrect when it assumed its assessment and property tax liability would remain relatively constant.

Millennium Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Assessor, Benton County, Indiana
49T10-1008-TA-42
Tax. Affirms Indiana Board of Tax Review’s decision to uphold real property assessments of Millennium Real Estate Investment, LLC. The court rejected Millennium’s argument that the IBTR abused its discretion in finding the assessor’s appraisal more persuasive.



 
 

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