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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT