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. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

ADVERTISEMENT