ILNews

Indiana Supreme Court takes 3 cases; denies 27

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state’s highest court has granted transfer to three cases, including one in which they vacated the Indiana Court of Appeals decision and sent it back to the appellate court.

The justices remanded Marvin L. Ervin v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-1102-CR-88, to the Court of Appeals on July 7. In a not-for-publication decision, the COA affirmed Marvin Ervin’s conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender. Ervin argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting pawn shop documents under the business record exception to the hearsay rules and refusing to instruct the jury on the offense of conversion, as a lesser included offense of theft.

The Indiana Supreme Court also took United Parcel Service v. Indiana Dept. of Revenue, No. 49S10-1107-TA-417; and K.D., et al., alleged to be CHINS; S.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, No. 49S02-1107-JC-416. In United Parcel Service, the Indiana Tax Court in a NFP opinion granted UPS’ motion for summary judgment and denied the Indiana Department of Revenue’s motion for summary judgment. The Tax Court reversed the department’s denial of UPS’ claim for refund of corporate income tax for 2000 and its assessment of additional corporate tax income against UPS for 2001.

In K.D., a divided Court of Appeals reversed the juvenile court’s adjudication of two children as children in need of services following their mother’s admission to allegations filed by the Department of Child Services, but the stepfather denied the allegations. The stepfather asked for a fact-finding hearing but was denied by the juvenile court.

At issue in the case is what procedure a juvenile court should follow when one parent or guardian admits to the CHINS allegations but another denies the allegations and asks for a fact-finding hearing. The majority decided there was no reason why the admission of one parent should abridge the statutory procedural due process rights of another, and it remanded the case.

Judge Melissa May dissented, believing the stepfather wasn’t denied due process in the case. While the stepfather should have had a fact-finding hearing as provided by statute, that error wasn’t reversible under the facts of this case, she wrote.

The justices also denied 27 cases for the week ending July 8.
 

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