Search Results

The following opinion was issued on March 31 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline. 

Indiana Tax Court
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
No. 24T-TA-00004

Tax. Appeal from the Indiana Department of State Revenue. Grants in part and denies in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Holds that under Indiana Code § 6-2.5-5-13, the phrase “radio or microwave transmitting or receiving equipment” includes cell phones based on its plain and ordinary meaning, and rejects the Department’s attempt to limit the exemption to central network infrastructure or equipment under the provider’s custody and control; the court further concludes New Cingular qualifies as the “person acquiring the property” for purposes of the exemption because the relevant acquisition is its purchase of the phones from suppliers, making its use of the phones exempt from use tax, but denies summary judgment on the refund amount due to unresolved factual issues. Judge McAdam authored the opinion. Petitioner’s attorney: Benjamin Blair, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana. Respondent’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Travis S. Chandler v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2553

Criminal. Appeal from the Brown Circuit Court, Judge Mary Wertz. Affirms the denial of Chandler’s petition to file a belated appeal and remands with instructions to permit a belated notice of appeal. Holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under Post-Conviction Rule 2 because belated appeals are not available for probation revocation orders under controlling Indiana Supreme Court precedent; however, concludes extraordinarily compelling reasons justify resurrecting Chandler’s forfeited appeal where he timely communicated his desire to appeal, the failure resulted from counsel not hearing him, and he acted diligently once the issue was discovered. Judge Felix authored the opinion. Judges May and Mathias concur. Appellant’s attorney: Kurt A. Young, Nashville, Indiana. Appellee’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Nicole Olbera, et al. v. Tiara Sykes
No. 25A-JP-2005

Juvenile. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Magistrate Daun A. Weliever. Reverses and remands with instructions. Holds the trial court erred in dismissing Demaj Baker’s paternity petition and in determining Sykes was the child’s legal parent because, although the marital presumption applied to Sykes as a same-sex spouse, that presumption is rebuttable and Baker presented clear and convincing evidence rebutting it by establishing his biological parentage and the absence of any enforceable sperm donor agreement relinquishing his parental rights; the court further concludes the trial court improperly treated the presumption as a rule of parentage rather than a rebuttable presumption. Judge DeBoer authored the opinion. Judges Brown and Altice concur. Appellants’ attorneys: Thomas Roberts, Roberts Law, Noblesville, Indiana; Georgia Dunkerley, Harshman Ponist Smith & Rayl, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee pro se: Tiara Sykes.

This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.