ILNews

Justices take 6 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer to six cases and declined to take 22 others.

In State of Indiana v. Andy J. Velasquez II, No. 53S05-1105-CR-280, the state appealed following the acquittal of Andy Velasquez for Class A felony and Class C felony child molesting of his stepdaughter. The state argued, among other issues, that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding the testimony of clinical social worker Judy Kline, psychologist Dr. Jennifer Spencer, and victim G.S.’s grandmother constituted vouching testimony.

The Indiana Court of Appeals found the trial court erred in excluding their testimonies, but double jeopardy grounds barred a second trial since Velasquez had been acquitted.

In Keith M. Ramsey, M.D. v. Shella Moore, et al., No. 45S05-1105-CT-281, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Methodist Hospital’s motion to dismiss Shella Moore’s proposed medical malpractice claim, but reversed the denial of Dr. Keith Ramsey’s motion to dismiss Moore’s medical malpractice complaint against him. The appellate court was split as to whether the trial court’s disposition in this case was final.

In Indiana Department of Insurance, et al. v. Robin Everhart, No. 84S01-1105-CV-282, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment in favor of Robin Everhart on her claim against the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund. The judges held it isn’t consistent with Supreme Court precedent to hold the fund liable for more than the increased risk of harm that the doctor caused. Several months later, the appellate court split in denying a rehearing on the matter.

Judge Margret Robb wanted to grant the rehearing and believed the appellate court shouldn’t have applied Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 323 in the original opinion. Section 323 outlines that one is liable for harm to another if the failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm. It allows the plaintiff to avoid summary judgment on the issue of proximate cause even when there was a less than 50 percent chance of recovery absent the negligence.

In LaPorte Community School Corp., et al. v. Maria Rosales, No. 46S04-1105-CT-284, the appellate court held the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion by admitting deposition testimony from an expert regarding school safety and school emergency plans. The judges also found the trial court properly denied the school’s motion for judgment on the evidence as to negligence and properly granted Maria Rosales’ motion for judgment on the evidence as to contributory negligence. They also concluded the jury wasn’t properly instructed regarding negligence and that was a reversible error. The matter was remanded for a new trial. Judge Terry Crone concurred in part and dissented in part.

In D.R. v. Review Board, No. 93S02-1105-EX-285, the Court of Appeals released a not-for-publication opinion affirming the decision by the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development denying D.R.’s unemployment benefits. D.R. claimed the record didn’t support the board’s decision to deny her full unemployment benefits.

In Antoine D. Hill v. State of Indiana, No. 45S03-1105-PC-283, the COA reversed the denial of Antoine Hill’s petition for post-conviction relief in an NFP decision. They concluded Hill’s post-conviction attorney abandoned him on appeal, so he was denied the fair setting for post-conviction relief contemplated by Baum v. State, 533 N.E.2d 1200 (Ind. 1989). They remanded with instructions to grant his petition.  

In addition to denying transfer to 22 cases, the justices vacated an order granting transfer to Tonya M. Peete v. State of Indiana, No. 49S05-1104-CR-201; and dismissed Dan Cristiani Excavating Co. Inc v. Jeremy & Kerri Money, No. 10A05-1002-CT-114.

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT