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

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT