ILNews

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.

 

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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT