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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT