ILNews

High court takes 4 cases

IL Staff
June 29, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted four transfers June 24, including one in which the Indiana Court of Appeals extended the duty to prevent injury to sports participants to include sporting event volunteers.

The high court will hear Cassie E. Pfenning v. Joseph E. Lineman, Whitey's 31 Club, Inc., Marion Elks Country Club Lodge #195, and the Estate of Jerry A. Jones, No. 27A02-0905-CV-444. The Court of Appeals split in affirming that the defendants in injured teen Cassie Pfenning’s suit owed a duty to protect her from injury. Pfenning attended a golf scramble with her grandfather and was injured by a golf ball while working on a beverage cart.

The appellate court has previously held there is no duty from one participant in a sports activity to another to prevent injury resulting from inherent risk of the sport.

The majority extended the definition of participants from Geiersbach v. Frieje, 807 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), to include not only players, coaches, or players on the bench during the game, but also sporting event volunteers. Because the majority considered her a participant in the golf scramble, which had inherent risks, they ruled the defendants didn't owe her a duty.

The justices also took a case involving an inequity in the Grandparent Visitation Act. In In Re: Adoption of L.D.; A.B. and N.E. v. Jo.D and Ja.D., No. 49A02-0907-CV-671, the Court of Appeals noted a potential and presumably unintended bias in the act in which visitation is affected because of the lack of biological relationships between the parties in an adoption petition.

Paternal grandparents Jo.D. and Ja.D. adopted their adopted son’s child. The child was being taken care of by his mother’s co-worker, N.E., who later adopted the mother. N.E. wanted to continue visitation, but since she isn’t biologically related to the boy, she isn’t entitled to visitations under the act. If N.E. had been the one to adopt the boy, then the paternal grandparents wouldn’t have visitation rights either under the act, the appellate court ruled.

The Supreme Court also granted transfer to Curtis Outlaw v. State, No. 49S02-1006-CR-328; and Steven Marbley-El v. State, No. 71S03-1006-PC-329, and released opinions June 24.

The justices denied transfer to 23 other cases.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT