ILNews

Supreme Court will hear 5 arguments this week

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A mobile home demolished more than a year ago is the subject of one of several oral arguments the Indiana Supreme Court will hear this week.

Justices will hear three cases Tuesday, and two more are scheduled for Thursday, but the court has granted transfer in only two of those cases so far.

The mobile home-related argument tomorrow is in Ernestine Waldon v. Donna Wilkins, 18A04-0604-CV-199, which comes out of Delaware County. After deciding a mobile home was unfit to live in, the county health department initiated proceedings against the owners, Waldon and Virgie Small, and ultimately had the home demolished. The Circuit Court denied the owners' motions to set aside a default judgment and for an order requiring the return of the trailer. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion Dec. 29. The justices have not yet accepted jurisdiction.

A second case for which the court will consider transfer is Glen Strohmier v. Vivian Strohmier, 24A01-0606-CV-245. The Franklin Circuit Court granted the former wife's Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment and modified its earlier division of property, but the appellate court in October reversed and held that the former husband's bankruptcy did not provide grounds for relief under that trial rule.

So far, the only case to be heard Tuesday that the Supreme Court has granted transfer in is a criminal case from Grant Superior Court: Thabit Gault v. State, 27S02-0705-CR-181. Gault was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. The Court of Appeals affirmed and decided Gault was not entitled to review a police report because the officer was not an "adverse party" for purposes of Evidence Rule 612(a).

Two arguments are set before the Indiana Supreme Court Thursday, as well. The first argument, Sandra Brinkman v. Anne Bueter, 29S02-0704-CV-141, is a medical malpractice case involving complications associated with pregnancy. A divided Court of Appeals reversed on statute of limitations claims, holding the patient couldn't have reasonably discovered her claims until after consulting another obstetrician. The court has granted transfer in this case.

The second case is State v. Melissa Rucker, 15A01-0608-CR-337, which involves police obtaining a search warrant for Rucker's premises and not filing a supporting affidavit until two weeks later. The Dearborn Superior Court granted her motion to suppress evidence obtained on the grounds based on the delayed filing, and the appellate judges affirmed in February. The court will consider transfer.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT