ILNews

Supreme Court arguments Wednesday

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court will have a busy Wednesday morning as it hears arguments scheduled for three cases on appeal.

First up is Ronald Mayes v. Second Injury Fund, No. 93A02-0702-EX-162, in which Mayes petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over his appeal. The Worker's Compensation Board denied Mayes' disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund, ruling Mayes' settlement of his claim against third-party tortfeasors precluded those benefits from the fund. The Court of Appeals affirmed finding Mayes failed to prove he was entitled to compensation from the fund.

Next up is Technisand, Inc. v. Jessie Melton, No. 30A01-0608-CV-334, in which the Supreme Court is asked to decide whether the statute of limitations was applicable in claims against Technisand. In the not-for-publication opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment for Technisand in a complaint against the company filed by Patty Melton's husband. Patty died of leukemia and her husband filed the complaint, alleging chemicals manufactured and sold by Technisand that were present in Patty's workplace caused or contributed to her death. The Court of Appeals held that although the statute of limitations had run out with respect to a wrongful death claim against Technisand, the claim was timely filed against the company with respect to the Products Liability Act.

Finally, the high court will hear arguments in Darrel Maymon v. State of Indiana, No. 48A02-0611-PC-1060. Maymon was convicted on four counts of burglary in one trial and petitioned for post-conviction relief, claiming his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not seeking severance of the charges. Madison Superior Court denied relief, but the Court of Appeals reversed Maymon's two convictions of Class A felony burglary and remanded for retrial on the two Class B felony counts of burglary.
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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT