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.


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. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.