ILNews

Justices to hear 5 cases in next 2 days

IL Staff
September 27, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court hears five arguments in the next two days. Two are scheduled for Wednesday, and three will be heard on Thursday.

Wednesday at 9 a.m., the court will hear arguments in Troy R. Smith v. State of Indiana, No. 35S02-1106-CR-369, a Huntington County case involving a man who pleaded guilty to non-support of a dependent child and was placed on probation. Later, the Huntington Superior Court revoked probation when Smith did not continue paying the full amount of support. The Court of Appeals reversed on grounds the state had not proved Smith’s ability to pay and the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation in full.

At 9:45 a.m., the justices will hear Indiana Department of Revenue v. AOL, LLC, No. 49S10-1108-TA-514. The state agency denied AOL’s claim for a refund for use tax paid on its in-state use of certain promotional materials sent to prospective and existing customers. On AOL’s original tax appeal, the Tax Court issued an unpublished order granting summary judgment to AOL.

A third argument scheduled for Wednesday – Indiana Department of Revenue v. United Parcel Service, Inc. – was cancelled.

On Thursday, the justices will hear three sets of arguments:
At  9 a.m., the justices will hear Sheila Perdue, et al. v. Michael Gargano, et al., No. 49S02-1107-PL-437. Plaintiffs brought a class action against Family and Social Services Administration seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the administration of Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. Sheila Perdue also brought an individual disability discrimination claim. The trial court granted summary judgment to FSSA on plaintiffs’ claim that their procedural due process rights were violated, but granted summary judgment to Perdue individually and to the class of SNAP applicants/recipients whose benefits were denied or terminated for failure to cooperate. On cross-appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment as to Perdue and as to those whose SNAP benefits were denied or terminated for failure to cooperate, and it reversed the award of summary judgment to FSSA, holding the procedures at issue did not afford plaintiffs due process.

At 9:45 a.m., the court hears Harold J. Klinker v. First Merchants Bank, No. 01S04-1107-PL-438. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for First Merchants Bank on its claims against Harold Klinker, including a fraud claim, and the order that he pay treble damages. The appellate court concluded that Klinker’s affidavit denying fraudulent intent and opposing summary judgment failed to show a genuine issue of material fact.

At 10:30 a.m., the court hears Rodney Nicholson v. State of Indiana, No. 55S01-1107-CR-444. Rodney Nicholson was found guilty of Class C felony stalking, but the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed due to insufficient evidence.
 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT