Saturday, August 31, 2013

Revenue Finds Removal System and Bailer Not Exempt Because Taxpayer did not Manufacture "Scrap Paper"

Taxpayer is an Indiana manufacturer. As the result of an audit, the Indiana Department of Revenue ("Department") determined that Taxpayer owed use tax. The Department therefore issued proposed assessments for use tax and interest.
...

Taxpayer protests the imposition of use tax on its "Scrap removal system, baling equipment and related parts." Taxpayer states that the equipment is necessary as part of its production process and is therefore exempt from Indiana sales and use tax. The Department notes that the burden of proving a proposed assessment wrong rests with the person against whom the proposed assessment is made, as provided by IC § 6-8.1-5-1(c).
...
 
Taxpayer manufactures cardboard boxes. During the cutting of the cardboard, a scrap removal system collects the scrap that falls below the production machinery. The removal system then carries the scrap to the baler where it is bundled for shipment. Taxpayer argues that the scrap removal system and baler both fall within this exemption. Taxpayer explains, "If the scrap is not removed [the product] cannot be further processed, therefore the removal of the scrap has a direct effect on the boxes being produced."
 
While the scrap removal system may be necessary, it does not satisfy the "double direct" test provided in IC 6-2.5-5-3(b) which states that the property must be directly used in direct production. Here the scrap remover is not part of direct production, but is instead part of post production. Once the scrap has been punched out, it is no longer part of production. Therefore the machinery used solely for the removal of the post production scrap is not considered part of direct production.
 
With regards to the baler, Taxpayer argues "we are however engaged in producing other tangible property for sale, that being bales of paper."
 
The Department refers to 45 IAC 2.2-5-10(k) which states:
 
"Definitions. Processing or refining is defined as the performance by a business of an integrated series of operations which places tangible personal property in a form, composition, or character different from that in which it was acquired. The change in form, composition, or character must be a substantial change. Operations such as distilling, brewing, pasteurizing, electroplating, galvanizing, anodizing, impregnating, cooking, heat treating, and slaughtering of animals for meal or meal products are illustrative of the types of operations which constitute processing or refining, although any operation which has such a result may be processing or refining. A processed or refined end product, however, must be substantially different from the component materials used." (Emphasis added)
 
Here the Taxpayer is not engaged in the production of a new or refined end product. While Taxpayer may sell the scrap, it is not a "product" manufactured by Taxpayer. The scrap is a by-product of Taxpayer's manufacturing process that Taxpayer sells in secondary markets. The scrap is not an item that is manufactured by the transformation of component raw materials into a distinct product. Taxpayer begins with scrap paper, and ends with scrap paper. Taxpayer does not make a new, "substantially different product." Therefore, in this instance, the removal system and bailer that are used to transport and bundle the scrap do not qualify for exemption. As a result, Taxpayer has not met its burden to prove the proposed assessment wrong, as provided by IC § 6-8.1-5-1(c).
 

Star-Press Reports Delaware County Plans Tax Sale Workshop

From the Muncie Star-Press:

The city’s Community Development will host a tax sale workshop 6-7 p.m. Tuesday in the auditorium of City Hall, 300 N. High St.

Anyone who is interested in learning more about how to purchase property in the Delaware County tax sale on Oct. 1 should attend the workplace. Admission is free.

Information: Call Terry Bailey, CD director, at (765) 747-4825.

http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013308310009

News and Tribune Reports Clark County Transfers $1 Million to Rainy Day Fund

From the Jeffersonville News and Tribune:

The Clark County Commissioners transferred $1 million to the county’s rainy day fund Thursday, which means the Clark County Council will be able to pay what it owes for insurance premiums.

The county currently owes $95,640 for general liability insurance and $83,603 for worker’s compensation insurance. The council also will need to come up with a way to pay for the county’s employer share for health insurance, for which it owes $800,000.

The commissioners had considered a request from the council for a loan from the county’s cumulative bridge fund earlier this year, but had unanimously voted against it.

“We indicated that if we saw as we got closer to the end of the year [that the funds were available], that we could possibly look at this issue again,” said Commissioners President Jack Coffman. “Well, now we’re near the end of the year, and we do have commitments to be made to our county insurance to be paid.”

The commissioners transferred $200,000 from the cumulative capital fund and $800,000 from the cumulative bridge fund to the rainy day fund. The commissioners have authority over the two cumulative funds, but the county council can appropriate funds from the rainy day fund.

The vote for the transfer was 2-1, with Commissioner John Perkins opposing the move.
...

http://newsandtribune.com/clarkcounty/x250202712/Clark-County-Commissioners-transfer-1-million-to-rainy-day-fund

Tribune Reports Chesterton Transfers TIF Funds to Municipal Accounts

From the Chesterton Tribune:

The Chesterton Redevelopment Commission has transferred nearly half a million dollars into three separate municipal accounts.

One of three transfers was to cover a shortfall in the General Fund. A second, to reimburse the CEDIT account for a number of projects pursued in the town’s tax increment financing district. The third, to cover the town’s share of a new computer software platform purchased by the Utility but installed on a town-wide basis.
 
The commission made those transfers--totaling $441,934.78--at its meeting Monday night, by unanimous resolution.
 
The largest of the three transfers was of $179,397.50 into the General Fund, to pay debt service on the bond issued to finance the municipal complex on 15th Street. Attorney Chuck Lukmann attributed the shortfall to miscommunication and confusion between the Clerk-Treasurer’s Office and the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF). As a result, updated information on the bond obligation wasn’t submitted to DLGF, which subsequently didn’t approve the line item in the 2013 budget.
 
The second largest transfer was of $162,537.28 into the County Economic Development Income Tax (CEDIT) Fund, to reimburse CEDIT for a number of projects and expenditures--such as roadwork--which qualify as TIF projects but were not originally pursued as such.
 
The last transfer was of $100,000 to the Utility’s Operating Fund, to pay for the town’s share of the new software platform installed by Tyler Technologies.
...
 

Leader Reports Washington County Budget Ready for Approval

From the Salem Leader:

The Washington County Council is expected to approve proposed budgets for 2014 during its meeting Tuesday, Sept. 3, a day later than usual due to the Labor Day holiday. The meeting is set for 9:30 a.m. in the government building on Martinsburg Road.

As submitted, budgets funded from the county's general fund totaled $5,611,461, compared to $5,392,578 which the council approved for this year. The state ordered the county to trim that by $329,060, which reduced the total 2013 general fund budgets this year to $4,963,518.

The county council has made few changes during budget talks. But one change is the structuring of the highway department. As submitted, the budget did not include a line item for the superintendent. Commissioner Dave Brown had proposed eliminating the position and re-assigning duties to the three district foremen and the department's secretary. His idea was shot down by Commissioner Phil Marshall, who told the council during a public hearing that $31,934 should be put back in for the superintendent. The three foreman receive approximately $30,000 each.

Another step the council appears to be in the process of implementing is another local option tax, a public safety income tax. Set at .25 of one percent, the income tax would generate about $900,000; of that approximately $650,000 would go to the county's general fund. The remaining $250,000 would be distributed to other taxing entities.

As submitted, the grand total for all budgets for next year is $14,943,342.


http://www.salemleader.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=7400&SectionID=2&SubSectionID=20&S=1

Star Reports Indianapolis' Council Democrats Vote Against Mayor's Neighborhood Improvements Proposal

From the Indianapolis Star:

City-County Council Democrats on Thursday rejected two big public works proposals from Mayor Greg Ballard’s administration.

One would extend Indianapolis’ massive road-and-sidewalks initiative by borrowing $135 million to $150 million for projects over the next three years. The ­other would raise money for $320 million in storm drainage improvements across the city in the next 20 years by adjusting the storm water fees paid by property owners, with most paying more than they do now.

The Public Works Committee voted 5-2, along party lines, against sending both proposals to the full council, effectively halting them.

Those defeats delivered a blow to the Republican mayor and caught some city officials by surprise.

“Democrats on the City-County Council turned their backs on every neighborhood in Indianapolis,” Ballard said in a written statement. “By placing politics ahead of the best interests of the community, they rejected a plan that would have provided sidewalks in many of our neighborhoods, repaved every one of our worst streets, made our bridges safer and fixed flooding problems in some of our poorest neighborhoods.”

But Democrats said it was a reluctance to borrow so much money for immediate projects that led them to vote against the roadwork bonds.
...

See the full article here:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013308290073

News Reports Shelby County Business Appeals Assessment to Indiana Supreme Court

From the Shelbyville News:

For possibly the first time in Shelby County history, a local business has taken its property assessment appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Kooshtard Property VIII, LLC has petitioned the highest court in the state to review an Indiana Tax Court ruling that it failed to prove its land was over-assessed by the Shelby County Assessor’s Office.

“Nobody can think of a time when Shelby County went to the supreme court before on any of their appeals,” Shelby County Assessor Anne Thurston said.

At issue is a two-acre parcel located at 2905 E. State Road 44 in Shelbyville, home of the Big Foot convenience store and a gas station.

According to court documents, county assessing officials applied a multiplier of 100 percent to the property value in the 2006 and 2007 tax years, doubling its value from a base rate of $200,000 per acre to $400,000 per acre.

Kooshtard took its appeal to the Indiana Board of Tax Review in 2009, arguing that because the multiplier was not applied to the adjacent properties it failed to meet uniformity requirements and should not be applied to its own.

The neighboring properties included a nearby automotive sales/service center, a fast-food restaurant and an office building, according to court documents.

When the IBTR rejected the argument, Kooshtard moved to the Tax Court but had no better luck. It agreed with the IBTR that Kooshtard failed to present market-based evidence to support its claim.

Last month, the company filed a brief with the Supreme Court which was followed with a filing last week by attorneys for the Shelby County Assessor’s Office.

Kooshtard has yet one more opportunity to file a brief before the court makes a final decision to accept the judgment of the lower courts and deny a hearing or hear the case.

“We feel confident going forward that the Supreme Court will do the same as the lower courts,” in denying the claim, said Jeff Wuensch, Nexus Group COO, said. “But you never know.”
...

http://www.shelbynews.com/articles/2013/08/31/news/doc52213c984ab15583081276.txt

Summary of Active Tax Court Cases

This is my second attempt to report the status of Tax Court cases.  While in my first effort
(http://indianapropertytaxreporter.blogspot.com/2013/08/tax-court-status-report.html) I  reported the status of every case filed after 2010, in this summary I reviewed cases going all the way back to 2005, but I am reporting only the status of open matters.

As always, do not rely upon this summary, but check the actual status of any case you are interested in.  You may do so here:  https://courtapps.in.gov/Docket/Search/

Again, any errors are my own fault in collecting the information.


08/07/13
49T10-1307-TA-65
 Petition filed 7/16/2013
08/07/13
49T10-1308-TA-66
 Petition filed 8/1/2013
08/05/13
49T10-1307-TA-64
 Petition filed 7/25/2013
07/24/13
49T10-1307-TA-63
 Petition filed 7/1/2013
07/24/13
49T10-1307-TA-62
 Petition filed 7/11/2013
07/24/13
49T10-1307-TA-61
Petition filed 7/8/2013
07/24/13
49T10-1307-TA-62
Petition filed 7/11/2013
07/24/13
49T10-1307-TA-63
Petition filed 7/16/2013
07/09/13
71T10-1307-TA-60
Case management plan due 10/28/2013
07/09/13
49T10-1306-TA-58
Case management plan due 9/4/2013
07/03/13
49T10-1306-TA-57
Case management plan due 9/4/2013
06/21/13
49T10-1306-TA-55
Case management conference scheduled 8/4/2013
06/21/13
49T10-1306-TA-56
Case management plan due 9/30/2013
06/07/13
49T10-1306-TA-54
Case management plan filed 8/30/2013
05/29/13
49T10-1305-TA-53
Petition filed 5/23/2013
05/28/13
49T10-1305-TA-51
Consolidated; case management plan issued 8/1/2013
05/28/13
49T10-1305-TA-52
Case management conference continued; status report due 10/22/2013
05/01/13
45T10-1304-TA-50
Case management plan issued 8/1/2013
05/01/13
49T10-1304-TA-47
Case management conference scheduled 9/17/2013
05/01/13
49T10-1304-TA-48
Case management plan issued 6/19/2013
04/10/13
49T10-1303-TA-46
Status report due 9/13/2013
04/10/13
49T10-1303-SC-45
Case management plan issued 6/20/2013
04/02/13
71T10-1211-TA-74
Oral argument held 4/15/2013; awaiting order
03/21/13
49T10-1303-TA-44
Consolidated; amended case management plan issued 8/22/2013
02/26/13
49T10-1302-TA-43
Stayed 4/26/2013
02/22/13
49T10-1302-TA-36
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/22/13
49T10-1302-TA-42
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/22/13
49T10-1302-TA-37
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/22/13
49T10-1302-TA-38
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/22/13
49T10-1302-TA-39
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/22/13
49T10-1302-TA-40
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/22/13
49T10-1302-TA-41
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/22/13
49T10-1302-TA-35
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/21/13
49T10-1302-TA-26
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/21/13
49T10-1302-TA-25
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/21/13
49T10-1302-TA-27
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/21/13
49T10-1302-TA-28
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/21/13
49T10-1302-TA-29
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/21/13
49T10-1302-TA-30
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/21/13
49T10-1302-TA-31
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/21/13
49T10-1302-TA-32
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/21/13
49T10-1302-TA-33
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/21/13
49T10-1302-TA-34
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/20/13
49T10-1302-TA-24
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/20/13
49T10-1301-TA-4
Consolidated 4/24/2013
02/20/13
49T10-1301-TA-3
Consolidated 4/24/2013
02/20/13
49T10-1302-TA-23
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/20/13
49T10-1302-TA-22
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/20/13
49T10-1302-TA-21
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/20/13
49T10-1302-TA-20
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/20/13
49T10-1302-TA-19
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/20/13
49T10-1302-TA-18
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/20/13
49T10-1302-TA-17
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/19/13
49T10-1302-TA-14
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/19/13
49T10-1302-TA-9
Case management plan due 10/11/2013
02/19/13
49T10-1302-TA-11
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/19/13
49T10-1302-TA-16
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/19/13
49T10-1302-TA-12
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/19/13
49T10-1302-TA-13
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/19/13
49T10-1302-TA-15
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/19/13
49T10-1302-TA-10
Consolidated 4/1/2013
02/01/13
49T10-1301-TA-8
Amended case management plan issued 8/28/2013
01/28/13
49T10-1301-TA-6
Stayed 7/12/2013
01/14/13
49T10-1301-TA-1
Stayed 2/4/13
01/14/13
49T10-1212-TA-83
Case management plan due 10/8/2013
12/14/12
49T10-1212-TA-82
Case management plan issued 1/30/2013
12/14/12
49T10-1212-TA-80
Case management plan issued 4/1/2013
12/14/12
49T10-1212-TA-81
Case management plan issued 1/30/2013
11/28/12
49T10-1211-TA-78
Oral argument held 7/25/2013; awaiting order
11/28/12
49T10-1211-TA-77
Status report due 9/16/2013
11/26/12
49T10-1211-TA-75
Status report due 9/18/2013
11/26/12
49T10-1211-TA-76
Oral argument scheduled 10/3/2013
11/14/12
49T10-1211-TA-70
Oral argument held 8/29/2013; awaiting order
11/14/12
49T10-1211-TA-69
Case management plan issued 2/25/2013
11/14/12
49T10-1211-TA-71
Oral argument held 6/10/2013; awaiting order
11/08/12
49T10-1210-SC-67
Oral argument held 7/15/2013; awaiting order
11/08/12
45T10-1210-TA-65
Oral argument held 6/24/2013; awaiting order
11/08/12
49T10-1210-TA-68
Case management plan issued 4/1/2013
11/08/12
49T10-1210-TA-66
Consolidated; case management plan issued 12/4/2012
11/08/12
49T10-1207-TA-38
Oral argument held 3/4/2013; awaiting order
11/08/12
49T10-1210-TA-64
Oral argument held 7/17/2013; awaiting order
10/02/12
49T10-1209-TA-59
Stayed 10/24/2012
09/13/12
49T10-1209-TA-56
Consolidated and Stayed 12/26/2012
09/13/12
49T10-1209-TA-54
Consolidated and Stayed 12/26/2012
09/13/12
49T10-1209-TA-58
Consolidated and Stayed 12/26/2012
09/13/12
49T10-1209-TA-53
Consolidated and Stayed 12/26/2012
09/13/12
49T10-1209-TA-49
Consolidated and Stayed 12/26/2012
09/13/12
49T10-1209-TA-48
Consolidated and Stayed 12/26/2012
09/13/12
49T10-1209-TA-57
Consolidated and Stayed 12/26/2012
09/13/12
49T10-1209-TA-55
Consolidated and Stayed 12/26/2012
09/13/12
49T10-1209-TA-50
Consolidated and Stayed 12/26/2012
09/13/12
49T10-1209-TA-52
Consolidated and Stayed 12/26/2012
09/13/12
49T10-1209-TA-51
Consolidated and Stayed 12/26/2012
09/13/12
49T10-1209-TA-47
Consolidated and Stayed 12/26/2012
09/10/12
82T10-1208-TA-46
Motion to Dismiss filed 6/13/2013
08/24/12
49T10-1208-TA-45
Stayed 10/4/2012
08/17/12
49T10-1207-TA-42
Oral argument held 6/27/2013; awaiting order
08/17/12
49T10-1208-TA-41
Status report due 9/9/2013
08/17/12
49T10-1208-TA-44
Status report due 9/9/2013
08/17/12
49T10-1208-TA-43
Status report due 9/3/2013
08/06/12
49T10-1208-TA-40
Case management plan issued   12/13/2012
07/26/12
49T10-1207-TA-39
Status report due 9/13/2013
06/29/12
49T10-1206-TA-37
Oral argument held 7/17/2013; awaiting order
06/21/12
49T10-1206-TA-35
Oral argument held 3/8/2013; awaiting order
06/18/12
49T10-1206-TA-34
Motion for partial summary judgment filed 8/28/2013
06/18/12
49T10-1206-TA-33
Case management plan issued 10/22/2012
05/14/12
02T10-1205-TA-31
Case management plan issued 3/28/2013
 
 
 
 
05/02/12
49T10-1204-TA-29
Stayed 7/2/2012; status report filed 5/3/2013
04/27/12
49T10-1204-TA-26
Stayed 5/25/2012
04/27/12
49T10-1204-TA-25
Stayed 5/25/2012
04/27/12
49T10-1204-TA-28
Stayed 8/5/2013; status report due 10/31/2013
04/16/12
49T10-1204-TA-23
Stayed 8/29/2012; status report due 10/14/2013 
04/16/12
49T10-1204-TA-22
Status report due 9/3/2013
 
 
 
 
04/02/12
49T10-1203-TA-19
Hearing on motion for judgment on pleadings 7/10/2012; awaiting order
03/30/12
49T10-1203-TA-18
Consolidated; case management plan issued 8/1/2013
 
 
 
 
03/30/12
49T10-1203-TA-17
Consolidated; case management plan issued 8/1/2013
03/15/12
49T10-1203-TA-14
Motion for summary judgment filed 6/17/2013; hearing scheduled 10/11/2013
03/15/12
49T10-1203-TA-15
Case management plan issued 4/9/2013
03/14/12
49T10-1203-TA-13
Status report due 9/9/2013
03/08/12
49T10-1203-TA-12
Status report due 9/9/2013
 
 
 
 
02/24/12
49T10-1202-TA-8
Oral argument held 11/1/2012; awaiting order
02/23/12
49T10-1202-TA-7
Stayed 6/25/2013
02/08/12
02T10-1201-TA-5
Amended case management plan issued   1/23/2013
02/08/12
49T10-1201-TA-6
Hearing on summary judgment scheduled for 10/24/2013
01/27/12
49T10-1201-TA-4
Oral argument held 10/26/2012; awaiting order
01/20/12
49T10-1201-TA-3
Oral argument held 11/7/2012; awaiting order
01/20/12
49T10-1201-TA-2
Oral argument held 11/7/2012; awaiting order
01/20/12
49T10-1201-TA-1
Oral argument held11/7/2012; awaiting order
01/13/12
49T10-1112-TA-96
Oral argument on summary judgment 8/17/2012; awaiting order
12/30/11
49T10-1112-TA-91
Consolidated; case management plan issued 8/1/2013
12/30/11
49T10-1112-TA-92
Oral argument held 11/16/2012; awaiting order
12/30/11
49T10-1112-TA-93
Stayed 3/17/2013; status report due 9/16/2013
12/30/11
49T10-1112-TA-94
Oral argument held 4/16/2012; awaiting order
12/21/11
49T10-1111-TA-83
Stayed 8/1/2012; status report due 9/20/2013
12/21/11
49T10-1111-TA-82
Stayed 8/1/2012; status report due 9/20/2013
12/21/11
49T10-1111-TA-81
Stayed 8/1/2012; status report due 9/20/2013
12/21/11
49T10-1111-TA-80
Stayed 8/1/2012; status report due 9/20/2013
12/21/11
49T10-1111-TA-84
Stayed 8/1/2012; status report due 9/20/2013
12/21/11
49T10-1111-TA-89
Stayed 8/1/2012; status report due 9/20/2013
12/21/11
49T10-1111-TA-88
Stayed 8/1/2012; status report due 9/20/2013
12/21/11
49T10-1111-TA-87
Stayed 8/1/2012; status report due 9/20/2013
12/21/11
49T10-1111-TA-86
Stayed 8/1/2012; status report due 9/20/2013
12/21/11
49T10-1111-TA-85
Stayed 8/1/2012; status report due 9/20/2013
12/01/11
49T10-1111-TA-78
Status report filed 6/3/2013
11/30/11
49T10-1111-TA-68
Oral argument held 1/23/2012; awaiting order
11/28/11
49T10-1111-TA-67
Oral argument held 6/19/2012; awaiting order
10/31/11
49T10-1110-TA-63
Oral argument held 11/1/2012; awaiting order
10/31/11
71T10-1110-TA-62
Stayed 12/31/2012
10/31/11
49T10-1110-TA-64
Amended case management plan issued 2/8/2013
09/27/11
49T10-1109-TA-58
Stayed 10/26/2011
09/21/11
49T10-1109-TA-56
Oral argument held 4/20/2012; awaiting order
09/21/11
49T10-1109-TA-57
Stayed 7/1/2013; status report filed 8/30/2013
08/22/11
49T10-1108-TA-51
Oral argument held 3/9/2012; Awaiting Order
06/28/11
49T10-1106-TA-44
Status report due 9/3/2013
06/28/11
49T10-1106-TA-43
Case management plan issued 6/12/2013
06/27/11
49T10-1105-TA-40
Stayed 7/7/2011
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
06/16/11
49T10-1105-TA-34
Amended case management plan issued 5/20/2013; status report due 10/30/2013
06/16/11
49T10-1105-TA-35
Oral argument on motion to dismiss held 9/30/2011; awaiting order
06/16/11
02T10-1104-TA-31
Oral argument held 7/31/2013
06/16/11
49T10-1104-TA-32
Oral argument held 7/31/2013; awaiting order
05/04/11
45T10-1104-TA-30
Oral argument held 10/18/2011; awaiting order
04/26/11
49T10-1104-TA-29
Oral argument held 5/11/2012; awaiting order
04/25/11
49T10-1104-TA-28
Oral argument held 11/15/2011; awaiting order
04/12/11
49T10-1104-TA-27
Oral argument held 10/20/2011; awaiting order
04/12/11
49T10-1104-TA-25
Consolidated; case management plan issued 12/4/2012
 
 
 
 
04/11/11
49T10-1103-TA-23
Stayed 7/1/2013
04/11/11
49T10-1103-TA-22
Oral argument held 2/3/2012; awaiting order
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
03/22/11
49T10-1102-TA-17
Hearing on summary judgment held 12/4/2012; awaiting order
03/22/11
39T10-1103-TA-19
Consolidated
02/28/11
49T10-1102-TA-14
Oral argument held 8/17/2011; awaiting order
02/24/11
49T10-1102-TA-13
Order on Motion to Dismiss issued 4/5/2013
02/24/11
39T10-1102-TA-9
Oral argument held 1/23/2012; awaiting order
02/24/11
49T10-1102-TA-11
Hearing on summary judgment held 1/13/2012; awaiting order
02/14/11
49T10-1101-TA-3
Status conference scheduled   for 9/9/2013
02/14/11
82T10-1101-TA-2
Oral argument held 8/23/2011; awaiting order
01/06/11
49T10-1012-TA-64
Summary judgment denied 8/9/2013; oral argument on merits scheduled for 11/4/2013
10/22/10
49T10-1010-TA-53
Motion for summary judgment filed 2/9/2012;   awaiting hearing
 
 
 
 
10/21/10
49T10-1008-TA-45
Status report due 9/18/2013
10/19/10
49T10-1007-TA-34
Hearing on summary judgment held 1/3/2012; awaiting order
08/20/10
49T10-1007-TA-36
10/3/2013 hearing vacated; status   report due 8/1/2013
08/20/10
49T10-1008-TA-37
Hearing on Summary Judgment held 5/4/2012; awaiting order
05/28/10
49T10-1005-TA-23
Oral argument held 11/15/2011; awaiting order
05/11/10
49T10-1004-TA-20
Status report due 10/8/2013
05/10/10
49T10-1002-TA-11
Status report due 9/16/2013
05/10/10
49T10-1002-TA-00012
Status report due 10/8/2013
05/10/10
49T10-1002-TA-7
Case management plan issued 8/23/2013
03/24/10
82T10-1001-TA-3
Case management plan issued 7/17/2013
11/10/09
49T10-0911-TA-77
Stayed 3/29/2010
11/10/09
49T10-0910-TA-72
Consolidated; amended Case Management plan issued 7/1/2013
11/10/09
49T10-0910-TA-71
Consolidated; amended Case Management plan issued 7/1/2013
08/27/09
49T10-0907-TA-39
Stayed 10/12/2009; status report filed 5/23/2013
08/27/09
49T10-0908-TA-42
Case management plan issued 9/14/2012
04/23/09
49T10-0903-TA-8
Stayed; status report filed 11/3/2011
04/23/09
49T10-0903-TA-12
Stayed; status report filed 11/3/2011
04/23/09
49T10-0903-TA-13
Stayed; status report filed 11/3/2011
04/23/09
49T10-0903-TA-10
Hearing scheduled for 9/17/2013
04/23/09
49T10-0903-TA-11
Stayed; status report filed 11/3/2011
04/23/09
49T10-0903-TA-9
Stayed; status report filed 11/3/2011
02/28/08
49T10-0712-TA-80
Stayed 6/12/2013
05/31/07
49T10-0704-TA-24
Hearing on summary judgment 8/10/2013; awaiting order
03/30/07
71T10-0703-TA-18
Stayed 6/12/2007; status report due 9/18/2013