ILNews

High Court accepts 7 transfers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has taken seven cases on transfer, including a case in which the lower appellate court was split on a construction manager’s duty to an injured worker.

In The Hunt Construction Group, et al. v. Shannon D. Garrett, No. 49S02-1106-CT-365, the Indiana Court of Appeals found that many provisions of the contracts Hunt Construction entered into gave the company significant duties regarding safety on the jobsite, so it owed a duty to Shannon Garrett. Garrett, an employee of Baker Concrete, was injured while working on Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis.

Judge Ezra Friedlander dissented on this point, believing the majority disregarded the provisions that limited Hunt Construction’s duties regarding safety and that their holding “will fundamentally alter contracts” of this nature and make it “virtually impossible for a contractor taking on the role of construction manager to limit its liability so as not to become an insurer of safety for workers of other contractors.”

The justices also accepted:
-    McCord Investments, LLC, et al. v. Sawmill Creek, LLC, et al., No. 49S02-1106-CV-364, in which the Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting the motion filed by Sawmill Creek to set aside a tax deed the auditor issued to McCord Investments because Sawmill Creek’s owner wasn’t provided constitutionally adequate notice of the tax sale;

-    Phyllis Hardy, et al. v. Mary Jo Hardy, No. 51S01-1106-PL-366, in which the COA held that the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act preempts state law claims brought by Phyllis Hardy seeking to keep her and her grandchild as beneficiaries of her ex-husband’s life insurance policy;

-    Thomas Dexter v. State of Indiana, No. 79S05-1106-CR-367, in which the COA affirmed Thomas Dexter’s conviction of Class A felony neglect of a dependent and determination of his habitual offenders status, finding expert witness testimony was admissible and the jury was properly instructed;

-    Richard S. Emmons v. State of Indiana, No. 79S04-1106-CR-368, in which the appellate court upheld the decision to deny Richard Emmons’ motion for sentence modification in a not-for-publication opinion;

-    Troy R. Smith v. State of Indiana, No. 35S02-1106-CR-369, where the COA reversed the revocation of Troy Smith’s probation for not paying child support weekly, which was a condition of his probation. The judges held that a trial court may revoke probation for not satisfying a financial obligation only if the state proves by a preponderance of the evidence that there is less than full payment and the probationer submitted that smaller payment recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally. They found the state didn’t meet this burden of evidence to revoke Smith’s probation; and

-    Lamar M. Crawford v. State of Indiana, No. 49S05-1106-CR-370, in which the high court issued an opinion June 23.

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT