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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT