Indiana Supreme Court takes 9 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to nine cases – six of them criminal – and denied transfer to 30 for the week ending June 8.

The appeals include two that divided Court of Appeals panels: Margaret Kosarko v. William A. Padula, Administrator of the Estate of Daniel L. Herndobler, Deceased, No. 64S05-1206-CT-305, and Todd J. Crider v. State of Indiana, No. 91S05-1206-CR-306.

In Kosarko, the appellate panel was divided over whether prejudgment interest should be paid to a car crash victim who was awarded $210,000 in a jury trial.

In Crider, the judges were divided over whether a man could challenge his sentence after pleading guilty in White Superior Court to a Class D felony charge of theft and to being a habitual offender.

Also taken for review were:

•    Andre Gonzalez v. State of Indiana, No. 45S03-1206-CR-307, in which the appeals court reversed the denial of Andre Gonzalez’s petition to remove his lifetime sex offender designation.

•    Felix C. Sickels v. State of Indiana, No. 20S03-1206-CR-308, in which a panel affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded a man’s conviction of three counts of nonsupport of a dependent child.

The court also granted transfer then remanded to the Court of Appeals Lawrence Ray Holley, II v. State of Indiana, No. 79S02-1206-PC-320, and vacated that court’s not-for-publication decision. In that case, the appeals court affirmed the denial of Lawrence Holley’s petition for post-conviction relief. On rehearing, the judges affirmed that decision and expanded upon the “mailbox rule.”

Other cases granted transfer are: Roger L. Bushorn v. State of Indiana, No. 40S01-1206-CR-309; Curtis A. Bethea v. State of Indiana, No. 18S05-1206-PC-304; Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance v. Tim Black, as Husband and Personal Representative of Kay Black, Deceased, No. 64S05-1206-CT-305; and Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. v. Amco Insurance Co., No. 33S01-1206-CT-312.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit