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 On AOL’s original tax appeal, the Tax Court issued an unpublished order granting summary judgment to AOL.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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT