ILNews

High court grants 6 transfers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to six cases April 9, including one involving an election dispute for the mayor of Terre Haute, termination of parental rights cases, and a case involving an injury on school property.

Kevin D. Burke v. Duke Bennett, No. 84A01-0801-CV-2 - A divided appellate court reversed a ruling that held mayoral candidate Duke Bennett could take office as mayor despite the applicability of the federal law questioning his eligibility. The Court of Appeals found Bennett, who was an "officer or employee" at Hamilton Center, which receives federal funding for an educational program, was subject to the Little Hatch Act and ordered a special election. That meant Bennett was disqualified for running in a partisan election for mayor.

Termination of parent-child relationship of M.B. and S. B., No. 34A02-0805-JV-437 - The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the order denying M.B. and S.B.'s mother's motion to set aside its order for the voluntary termination of her parental rights. The addendum to the mother's voluntary consent to termination form is void and unenforceable as a matter of law. The trial court also properly denied her Ind. Trial Rule 60(B) motion to set aside judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed its ruling in a Jan. 9, 2009, rehearing.

Gary Community School Corporation v. Lolita Roach-Walker and Victor Walker, No. 45A05-0805-CV-275 - The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict in favor of Lolita Roach-Walker in her complaint for damages arising from a slip and fall on the school corporation's property. The issue in the case was whether the school corporation had time and opportunity to treat or remove the ice from the middle school's sidewalk. The school corporation failed to prove the condition of the sidewalk was temporary, which would grant it immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

In re: Termination of parent-child relationship of J.M., No. 02A05-0807-JV-416 - The appellate court reversed the trial court denial of the Allen County Office of Family and Children's petition to terminate the parental rights of J.M.'s mother and father. Given the evidence presented, including guardian ad litem testimony that termination would be in J.M.'s best interest, the trial court erred in denying the petition for termination. The case was remanded with instructions to enter an order terminating the parental rights of the mother and father.

Ezra Bradshaw v. Gary Chandler and Affirmative Insurance Co., No. 49A05-0806-CV-363 - The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of Affirmative Insurance Co., Bradshaw's insurer, disposing of his claim for uninsured motorist benefits. The trial court properly found Bradshaw's claim was time-barred because it was filed more than two years after the date of the accident and that neither the discovery rule nor Indiana Trial Rule 15(C) controls the policy's limitation period.

In re: The marriage of Suzanne Hebert Hamilton v. Richard Wayne Hamilton, No. 82A01-0804-CV-151 - The appellate court affirmed a trial court finding Richard Hamilton wasn't in contempt for failing to pay child support as ordered by a Florida trial court. It held the trial court's decision to enforce the Florida child support obligation for less than the amount ordered by the Florida court wasn't an impermissible modification under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. The record also showed Richard complied with the Indiana trial court's order.

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. The voices of the prophets are more on blogs than subway walls these days, Dawn. Here is the voice of one calling out in the wilderness ... against a corrupted judiciary ... that remains corrupt a decade and a half later ... due to, so sadly, the acquiescence of good judges unwilling to shake the forest ... for fear that is not faith .. http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2013/09/prof-alan-dershowitz-on-indiana.html

  2. So I purchased a vehicle cash from the lot on West Washington in Feb 2017. Since then I found it the vehicle had been declared a total loss and had sat in a salvage yard due to fire. My title does not show any of that. I also have had to put thousands of dollars into repairs because it was not a solid vehicle like they stated. I need to find out how to contact the lawyers on this lawsuit.

  3. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  4. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  5. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

ADVERTISEMENT