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 The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion Dec. 29.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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT