ILNews

Opinions Oct. 9, 2013

October 9, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Douglas G. Kildsig v. Warrick County Assessor
82T10-1101-TA-2
Tax. Reverses Indiana Board of Tax Review’s determination that the burden-shifting rule contained in Indiana Code 6-1.1-15-1(p) did not apply to its proceedings. The rule applies to the entire appeals process. Affirms that a portion of Douglas G. Kildsig’s land was properly classified as residential excess acreage for the 2009 tax year. The assessor presented evidence to support Kildsig did not use his land for agricultural purposes.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Specialty Foods of Indiana, Inc., d/b/a Jersey Mike's Subs v. City of South Bend and Century Center Board of Managers
71A05-1302-MI-95
Miscellaneous. Affirms order denying Specialty Foods of Indiana’s complaint for declaratory judgment as to its right to continue operating its business in the college Football Hall of Fame in South Bend under a use management and operations agreement. The force majeure provision of the agreement to be exclusive provider of food and beverages for the College Football Hall of Fame in South Bend is applicable to excuse the Century Center Board of Manager’s nonperformance of its obligations under the agreement because the closure of the Hall of Fame constitutes a “reason not within the reasonable control of Century Center.”

In Re: the Marriage of L.C. v. T.M.
32A01-1303-DR-91
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of mother’s request to modify custody. She presented sufficient evidence of changed circumstances due to participation in a travel soccer league and that modification is in the children’s best interests. Remands for an order to be entered that modifies the custody arrangement in accordance with the children’s best interests.

Custom Radio Corp., Custom Management Group, Inc., Richard Yarger and Robert O'Brien v. Actuaries & Benefit Consultants, Inc., and John M. Fogle
32A01-1303-CC-143
Civil collection. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Fogle and Actuaries & Benefit Consultants Inc. in a suit filed alleging negligent provision of consulting services and breach of oral contract. There is a genuine issue of fact as to whether the appellants’ knew or could have known that their Welfare Benefit Plans were noncompliant with federal law and that their plan contributions were retroactively taxable by April 30, 2004.

Jesse Doyle, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1303-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms denial of request to withdraw guilty plea and eight-year sentence for Class C felony incest.

Derek Dewitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1301-CR-33
Criminal. Affirms imposition of consecutive sentences for Class A felony attempted murder and murder convictions.

Darrell Hix v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1303-CR-331
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Jeffrey Cook v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1211-CR-608
Criminal. Affirms refusal by trial court to give Cook’s proffered jury instruction on self-defense because the evidence didn’t support giving it, and affirms convictions of murder, Class B felony prisoner in possession of a dangerous device or material and class D felony criminal gang activity.

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

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT