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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT