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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT