ILNews

Justices add 4 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A long-running dispute between the owners and former owners of a home with electrical and structural issues will return to the Indiana Supreme Court, one of four cases justices added last week.

Justices agreed to review the issue of whether plaintiffs who won a fraudulent misrepresentation judgment against former homeowners may be entitled to attorney fees and other costs under the Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a Lake Superior ruling that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover fees under the Act. The case is Joseph and M. Carmen Wysocki v. Barbara A. and William T. Johnson, both individually and as Trustees of the Barbara A. Johnson Living Trust, 45S03-1407-CT-459.

Justices also added two criminal cases decided in memorandum decisions by the Court of Appeals.

In Daniel Lee Pierce v. State of Indiana, 78S05-1407-CR-460, an appeals panel reversed multiple child molesting convictions and remanded for a new trial in Switzerland Circuit Court. The panel ruled the trial court abused its discretion by denying Daniel Lee Pierce’s motion to sever the charges against him.

In John Orville Study v. State of Indiana,  06S04-1407-CR-461, the Court of Appeals affirmed convictions of four counts of Class B felony robbery, six counts of Class D felony confinement, and one Class D felony count each of resisting law enforcement and auto theft. John Orville Study also argues the court erred in denying his request to sever charges and contests the admission of certain evidence.

The transfer list also includes a case in which justices rendered an opinion Friday, vacating the termination of parental rights for a mother who was in jail. That case is In re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.W., a Minor Child, and His Mother, C.C. K.W. v. Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc., 49S02-1407-JT-458.

Justices denied transfer in 23 cases. Supreme Court transfer dispositions may be viewed here.

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. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT