ILNews

Justices grant five transfers

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted five new cases.

At its weekly conference Aug. 28, justices granted transfer in two civil cases, two criminal cases, and a tax court case.

• Brenda and Darren Wagner v. Bobbi Yates, et al., No. 22A01-0710-CV-474: An underinsured motorist policy case from Floyd County. The Court of Appeals in April affirmed the lower court's granting of a motion for summary judgment in favor of American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin, the Wagners' automobile insurer. The court ruled that American Standard can set off payments made by State Farm under its Underinsured Motorist Coverage to the Wagners, and so it declined to address the issue of whether an anti-stacking clause exists in the policy.
• Kitchin Hospitality LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, No. 49T10-0604-TA-35: A not-for-publication tax case from March where the Tax Court denied the state agency's motion for summary judgment and granted Kitchin's motion for summary judgment, holding that during the years at issue utilities consumed in some hotel rooms qualified for tangible personal property exemptions under Indiana Code § 6-2.5-5-35(2)(B)(i).
• Keith Myers v. Wesley C. Leedy, No. 85A02-0711-CV-999: a case from Wabash County where the Court of Appeals in April reversed and remanded a lower court's decision that Leedy's interest in a piece of property as a tenant survived the forfeiture of his landlord's land sale contract.
• Tony R. Gray v. State of Indiana, No. 10A01-0708-CR-356: a Clark County case where the Court of Appeals in a June not-for-publication opinion affirmed convictions on two counts of robbery and three counts of criminal confinement.
• State of Indiana v. Shannon Hollars, No. 12A02-0711-CR-979: a Clinton County case that the Court of Appeals reversed in June, concluding that the lower court abused its discretion in granting Hollars' motion to correct error. The appellate court found the three perceived errors - jury instruction, a discovery violation, and timing of the search warrant execution - didn't warrant a new attempted murder trial, either individually or collectively, and therefore the court reinstated the jury's verdict and the 22-year sentence.
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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT