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 The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion Dec. 29.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. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT