ILNews

High court grants transfer to 3 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to three cases Thursday, including one case involving challenges to a ruling on pretrial motions after a guilty plea.

In Tommy D. Alvey v. State, No. 82A01-0804-CR-164, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Tommy Alvey couldn't challenge the trial court's denial of his pretrial motion to suppress because he pleaded guilty to a drug charge. Relying on the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling in Norris v. State, No. 43S03-0807-CR-379, the Court of Appeals ruled that an evidentiary challenge after pleading guilty isn't permissible.

Alvey challenged the trial court order denying his pretrial motion to suppress following a "conditional guilty plea" in which he and the state agreed he had reserved his right to appeal the court's order.

In Brennen Baker and Moisture Management v. Tremco Inc. and Rick Gibson, No. 29A02-0711-CV-1001, the appellate court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Rick Gibson on Brennen Baker's claim that Gibson defamed him by telling a third party that he suffered from mental illness and in favor of Tremco on Baker's "blacklisting" and wrongful-discharge claims. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Baker on his claim that he did not violate the noncompete clause with his former employer, Tremco. The case was also remanded for trial on Baker's claim against Tremco of tortious interference and the claim that Gibson defamed Baker by telling a third party that he had engaged in inappropriate sales practices.

Judge Terry Crone dissented in part in a separate opinion regarding the issue of whether Gibson defamed Baker by telling a third party that Baker suffered from a mental illness. Judge Crone believed that a bare assertion that someone suffers from a mental illness is sufficient to constitute slander per se.

The Supreme Court also granted transfer with opinion to Pelley v. State, No. 71S05-0808-CR-446.

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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT