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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT