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 On AOL’s original tax appeal, the Tax Court issued an unpublished order granting summary judgment to AOL.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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT