Indiana Supreme Court

Justices take 4 cases, deny 21

July 15, 2013
Dave Stafford
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear an appeal of a case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that a public school construction project built through a foundation should have been subject to public bidding requirements.
More

Chief justice appoints Bloomington man to disciplinary commission

July 3, 2013
IL Staff
Chief Justice Brent Dickson has appointed Bloomington resident Kirk White to a five-year term with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. White fills a vacancy created by the expiration of Richmond resident Fred Austerman’s second term.
More

Justices reinstate sex offender’s maximum sentence lowered by COA

July 2, 2013
Dave Stafford
The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday reinstated a trial court sentence that imposed maximum consecutive prison terms for a man convicted of two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.
More

Justices deny transfer for two dozen cases

July 1, 2013
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court rejected 24 requests for transfer last week, granting transfer in just one case which already has been decided.
More

Courts announce July 4 holiday closures

July 1, 2013
IL Staff
Indiana appellate courts and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals are extending the Independence Day holiday to a four-day weekend.
More

Justices reverse juvenile placement on sex offender registry

July 1, 2013
Dave Stafford
A juvenile who pleaded guilty to what would have been Class D felony sexual battery if committed by an adult should not have been placed on the sex offender registry, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Monday.
More

Indiana Supreme Court endorses new jury instructions for mentally ill defendants

June 28, 2013
Dave Stafford
Although it affirmed the judgment of the post-conviction court in denying relief, the Indiana Supreme Court endorsed a change in jury instructions regarding mentally ill defendants.
More

Justices disapprove of consideration of community outrage when reviewing sentence

June 28, 2013
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court upheld a man’s 53-year sentence for battery and neglect of dependent convictions, but disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning for affirming the sentence.
More

Justices: Center Township Small Claims court stays put

June 28, 2013
Dave Stafford
What’s been called the state’s busiest court will stay in the City-County Building in Indianapolis, the Indiana Supreme Court ordered Friday, blocking the Center Township trustee’s bid to relocate the court to a location on Fall Creek Parkway.
More

Justices slam agreement to no parenting time, no child support

June 26, 2013
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court had harsh words Tuesday for parents and attorneys who enter into agreements that stipulate giving up parenting time in lieu of paying child support. There must be extraordinary circumstances to justify denying parenting time.
More

Supreme Court kicks ‘buyer beware’ vs. disclosure case back to trial court

June 25, 2013
Dave Stafford
A Lake County dispute over whether a buyer or seller is responsible for a few thousand dollars worth of home defects is headed back to the trial court after a divided Indiana Supreme Court ordered a legal do-over.
More

Justices reverse rule of law going back to Civil War era

June 25, 2013
Jennifer Nelson
After requiring for nearly 150 years that a defendant charged with murder or treason be required to prove he or she is entitled to bail, a divided Indiana Supreme Court ruled it now falls upon the state to show that “the proof is evident or the presumption strong” that the defendant is guilty and not entitled to bail.
More

Justices: Officer had reasonable suspicion window tint violated law

June 25, 2013
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress cocaine found on him after his car was stopped by police on the belief the car’s window tint did not comply with Indiana statute. The justices found the officer had reasonable suspicion that the tint was in violation of the Window Tint Statute.
More

Indiana justices to rule on Evansville smoking ban

June 24, 2013
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court accepted two cases last week for transfer, a pair of rulings from Vanderburgh County on the city of Evansville’s ordinance prohibiting smoking in certain places.
More

Justices: Excluding expert witness was error by trial court

June 24, 2013
Jennifer Nelson
Four Indiana justices Friday held that a Montgomery Superior judge erred when he struck the plaintiff’s expert witness in a medical malpractice lawsuit and dismissed the suit under Indiana Trial Rules 37(B) and 41(E).
More

Fines will stand in legislative walkout case

June 18, 2013
Marilyn Odendahl
The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled the dispute over fines imposed on lawmakers resulting from Democratic walkouts during the 2011 and 2012 legislative sessions is outside of the court’s authority to render a decision.
More

Justices take trust case after hearing arguments

June 17, 2013
IL Staff
After hearing arguments June 6 in a dispute over the sale of a family farm, the Indiana Supreme Court has decided to take the case.
More

Monroe County attorney suspended following guilty plea

June 17, 2013
IL Staff
Attorney Phillip Chamberlain, who pleaded guilty to Class D felony counterfeiting in October 2012, has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana.
More

Justices affirm conviction but remand for new sentencing order

June 14, 2013
Dave Stafford
A man sentenced to 14 years in prison for his convictions on multiple felony gun and drug charges will still have to serve the time, but the court must revise the sentencing order to explain why one conviction was ordered to be served consecutive to the others.
More

Justices schedule high-profile arguments

June 14, 2013
Dave Stafford
Justices will waste little time getting to high-profile cases when they hear a new slate of oral arguments after Labor Day. The Indiana Supreme Court has scheduled 20 arguments beginning Sept. 5 and continuing for the next few months.
More

Justices look to set arguments in Rockport, blogger’s intimidation cases

June 10, 2013
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court may hold arguments in September on the case involving the controversial Rockport coal gasification plant as well as on the case of a Dearborn County man who was convicted of intimidation of a judge based on online rants.
More

Justices vacate transfer in third appeal of Fort Wayne foreclosure case

June 7, 2013
The Indiana Supreme Court decided this week that it won’t take the third appeal in the case involving a Fort Wayne restaurant operator sued by former mortgagors.
More

Justices take Rockport gasification appeal

June 6, 2013
Dave Stafford
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear an appeal that could determine the fate of a controversial proposal to fund a southern Indiana coal gasification plant with guaranteed prices above current market rates for the substitute natural gas it would create.
More

Justices uphold termination of mother’s parental rights after years of drug abuse

June 5, 2013
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court Wednesday set aside the Court of Appeals order dismissing a Dearborn County mother’s appeal of the termination of her parental rights and took the case. The justices affirmed the decision to end her parental rights to her three children.
More

Statement in tort claim does not prevent woman from trying to recover for injuries

June 4, 2013
Marilyn Odendahl
Even though a woman originally stated she did not suffer any injuries after her vehicle was rear ended by a police car, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled she can file a subsequent complaint against the municipality and the police department for personal injuries.
More
Page  << 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 >> pager
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT