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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT