remand hearing in Indiana

2018Cf. Gerstbauer v. Styers , 898 N.E.2d 369 , 380 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (trial court abused its discretion awarding attorney fees when it misinterpreted a fee-shifting provision in a lease agreement). [45] Because of the wide discretion we provide to trial court's in determining a reasonable amount of attorney fees, we cannot say the court abused its discretion here when it awarded $1365.00 to the Hayses' counsel.

2012The marital distribution should now be adjusted to account for the additional liability paid by [Wife] on behalf of [Husband]. 8 Id. (emphases added); see also id. at 27 (finding 27 in the April 21, 2010 decree, stating “[Wife] owns only term policies with no cash value. [Husband] reported cash value of $20,000.00”).

2010Kozlowski argues that "the Court of Appeals reversal [in the 2001 Opinion] in the instant case is a reversal of the grant of variance, and a final judgment between the parties as to that variance request" and that "[slimply stated, there is nothing the [Commission] can do to un-reverse the reversal of the variance." Id. at 7 .

2001This Court subsequently held that the 183 Petitions were an appropriate method to correct any objective errors in Barth's assessment and remanded the case to the State Board to evaluate whether the base rate calculations assigned to Barth's commercial buildings were erroneous Id. at 808 . *1128 On January 15, 1999, the State Board held a remand hearing.

1989I dissent from the majority's disposition of Issue III, concerning the potential tax consequences of early liquidation of the pension plans, for the reasons articulated in my dissenting opinion in Harlan v. Harlan (1989), Ind. App., 544 N.E.2d 553 .

1989I dissent from the majority’s disposition of Issue III, concerning the potential tax consequences of early liquidation of the pension plans, for the reasons articulated in my dissenting opinion in Harlan v. Harlan (1989), Ind.App., 544 N.E.2d 553 .

1981Based upon our review of the entire record herein, and the evidence and testimony at the remand hearing and the judicial mandate in Citizens Energy Coalition v. Indi *1352 ana & Michigan Electric Company, supra, we find that the total amount to be refunded to I&M’s retail electric ratepayers, during the period from January 30, 1977, to September 30, 1978, is $9,315,000 which amount is composed of $8,100,000 refund and $1,215,000, which latter amount represents the interest on said money during the period set forth above as found in the evidence of record herein.” The PSC proceeded to order I&M