ILNews

Justices accept 2 cases, decline feticide case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has taken two cases and declined to accept more than two dozen petitions seeking transfer.

During its private conference on Oct. 13, the state’s justices granted transfer petitions in the cases of Reginald N. Person Jr. v. Carol A. Shipley, No. 20S03-1110-CT-609, and John Witt, et al. v. Jay Petroleum, Nos. 38S02-1110-CV-608.

In Person, the Court of Appeals in May reversed a civil jury verdict in favor of Shipley and remanded for future proceedings. The case involved a 2004 Elkhart County accident. Person, the driver of an 18-wheeler semi tractor, sued Shipley, the driver of a sedan, after Shipley fell asleep at the wheel and her smaller car rear-ended his truck and resulted in his injuries. The jury found in favor of Shipley and awarded no damages, and the 2010 trial led to appellate issues about what expert witness testimony should be allowed. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the prejudicial expert testimony.

In Witt, the courts are analyzing a case involving underground storage tanks that were located on a former gas station lot in Portland, Ind., and led to environmental concerns and litigation. The appellate court found that the trial court erred when it held the appellants in contempt of court, both because a temporary restraining order was improvidently granted and because the appellants’ conduct during a June 2008 hearing didn’t constitute a willful violation of the terms of the order.

The justices denied the remaining 28 cases, including the case of Brian Kendrick v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1003-CR-300, which involves the man who shot a pregnant teller during a bank robbery in Indianapolis in 2008. That shooting led to the death of her twins, one being stillborn. The appellate court earlier this year vacated Kendrick’s two felony feticide convictions because of double jeopardy violations. The judges remanded for resentencing, noting the trial court can now consider Katherine Shuffield’s pregnancy and termination of it in crafting Kendrick’s sentence for attempted murder, as long as the aggregate sentence is not more than 53 years. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Steven David voted to grant transfer, but the three other justices denied the request.

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