ILNews

Justices take 2 cases

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted the case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals split in reversing a man’s Class A felony attempted murder conviction.

The justices took Tyrus D. Coleman v. State of Indiana, No. 20S03-1008-CR-458, in which the majority ruled the doctrine of issue preclusion barred the state from re-litgating the issue of whether Tyrus Coleman’s actions against Anthony Dye constituted attempted murder. Coleman shot Dye twice during a confrontation at a recording studio.

The majority reversed the denial of Coleman’s motion to dismiss his attempted murder charge by reason of collateral estoppel. The jury wasn’t able to reach a verdict as to his attempted murder charge and another trial on that charge was scheduled.

Judge Carr Darden dissented, disagreeing that issue preclusion applies to the instant case. He concluded the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in allowing Coleman to be re-tried for attempted murder.

The justices issued an order Monday accepting transfer in the case Lamar Advertising Inc. v. View Outdoor Advertising LLC and State of Indiana, Dept. of Transportation, No. 49S05-1008-CV-459. They summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision instructing the Indiana Department of Transportation to allow the parties to file new applications for a billboard permit and the lower court’s interpretation of an administrative rule as requiring INDOT to grant the first valid application it receives.

The Supreme Court also ordered INDOT to treat as concurrently filed any billboard permit application it gets from the parties within three business days of the date on which the Clerk certifies this order as final.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT