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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT