Opinions June 6, 2024

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

The following opinions were published after IL’s deadline Wednesday:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Patrick Hancock
22-2614
Criminal. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Chief Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Affirms Patrick Hancock’s sentence in district court of four years in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release for unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. Finds that evidence supported the district court’s findings that Hancock represented himself to be a police officer by wearing a variety of law enforcement paraphernalia, including an official-looking badge, gun holster, handcuffs, and a baton. Also rejects Hancock’s constitutional challenges to Indiana law and finds Indiana Code § 35-44.1-2-6 is a permissible regulation of false speech because it is narrowly tailored to serve the government’s compelling interest in public safety, and it is neither overbroad in its reach nor void for vagueness.

Indiana Tax Court
Clark County Assessor v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc.
22T-TA-11
Tax. Affirms the the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s final determination reducing the 2018 through 2020 assessments of Dillard Department Stores, Inc.’s anchor department store in Clarksville. Finds the Clark County Assessor has not demonstrated to the court that the Indiana Board’s final determination was contrary to law or unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence.

Thursday opinions

Indiana Court of Appeals
McKinley Kelly v. State of Indiana
23A-PC-1025
Post conviction relief. Affirms the Lake Superior Court’s denial of McKinley Kelly’s successive petition for post-conviction relief. Finds that the post conviction court’s denial of Kelly’s successive petition for post conviction relief is not clearly erroneous.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}