ILNews

Justices accept 1 transfer case, deny 9

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to a divorce case last week and denied nine other cases during its weekly private conference.

An order list issued Monday by the Indiana appellate clerk’s office indicated that the justices voted to accept the case of Sean Thomas Ryan v. Dee Anna Ryan, No. 71S03-1111-DR-644.

The Indiana Court of Appeals issued a ruling in March, reversing a judgment made by St. Joseph Circuit Judge Michael G. Gotsch in the case involving a husband and wife who filed for divorce in 2008. The judge denied the husband’s motion for relief from judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(8) and did not hold a hearing on pertinent evidence before ruling on the prices set for the sale of real estate listed in a settlement agreement. The appellate panel pointed out that the trial judge on remand doesn’t need to modify the agreement terms or the agreement to provide for relief, but he could issue an order providing for additional terms if the agreements are silent. That point came up in a prior appellate decision in Rothschild v. Devos, 757 N.E.2d 219, 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

The justices unanimously denied six cases: The Board of Commissioners in the County of Allen, Commissioner Linda K. Bloom, Commissioner William Brown, Commissioner F. Nelson Peters v. Northeastern Indiana Building Trades Council, Kent L. Prosser, Mark Jarrell, Gregory Stoller, and Michael Kinder & Sons, Inc.; State of Indiana v. Stephen Alter; Karl Driver v. State of Indiana; Anthony Scott v. Saundra L. Walden; Estate of Verna D. Carter v. Holly F. Szymczak; and First Consumer Credit, Inc. v. Sho-Pro of Indiana, Inc.

A majority of justices also denied three others: Save Our School; Elmhurst High School v. Fort Wayne Community Schools and Fort Wayne Community Schools Board of School Trustees, in which Justice Robert Rucker would have granted transfer; Gary Nelson II v. State of Indiana, in which Justice Steven David would have granted transfer; and Robbie J. Bex v. State of Indiana, in which both David and Rucker would have granted transfer.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT