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
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. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT