ILNews

High court takes 4 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted four cases on transfer, including one in which they released an opinion on the matter the same day they granted transfer.

On Feb. 8, the justices took Mariea L. Best v. Russell C. Best, No. 06S05-1102-CV-73 and released an opinion upholding modification of physical custody of their daughter to Russell Best.

On February 10, they granted transfer to three more cases – Misty D. Davis v. Animal Control – City of Evansville, et al., No. 82S01-1102-CV-77; Mary Beth & Perry Lucas v. U.S. Bank N.A., et al., No. 28S01-1102-CV-78; and Rod L. Avery, et al. v. Trina Avery, No. 49S05-1102-PL-76.

In Davis, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed in a not-for-publication opinion summary judgment for the city defendants in this action following injuries Shawn Davis received from a dog bite. At issue was whether the defendants had immunity from this claim. The majority ruled no, and Judge Kirsch dissented, holding the underlying action falls within the immunity set forth in Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3(8).

In Lucas, the Court of Appeals held on interlocutory appeal that the Lucases, whose home was being foreclosed on, are entitled to a jury trial on their legal claims against their mortgage holder and loan servicer. The judges relied on Songer v. Civitas Bank, 771 N.E.2d 61, 63 (Ind. 2002), to find they are entitled to a jury trial on their claims of conversion and deception, alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act, and other state and federal statutory law and state common law claims.

In Avery, the appellate judges addressed an issue of first impression and held that a will contest is a civil action and a defendant in this type of action is required to file an answer or plead to a complaint as provided by the state’s trial rules.

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT