ILNews

Justices accept 5 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer to five cases, including a first impression issue dealing with Social Security income and restitution.

In Rebecca D. Kays v. State of Indiana, No. 42S05-1107-CR-441, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the restitution order entered against Rebecca Kays following her conviction of misdemeanor battery. The trial court ordered she pay $1,500 to the victim but didn’t adequately consider her ability to pay. Kays lived on $647 in monthly Social Security benefits.

The appellate court found that 42 U.S.C.A. Section 470(a) precludes the trial court from considering SSI in determining the ability to pay restitution. Judge Melissa May wrote this approach follows the purpose of Social Security benefits, which is to assure that the recipient’s income is maintained at a level viewed by Congress as the minimum necessary for the subsistence of that person. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine how much Kays is able to pay.

In Sheila Perdue, et al. v. Anne W. Murphy, et al., No. 49S02-1107-PL-437, the COA found the Family and Social Services Administration’s adverse notices pertaining to public benefits programs that do not name specific missing eligibility documents don’t comport with the requirement of procedural due process.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana sued the FSSA on behalf of people who have applied for or receive public benefits. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the state agency from issuing adverse action notices regarding Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

If an applicant is denied benefits, he will receive a generic notice alleging failure to cooperate, but the notice does not specify what verification document was missing. A Marion Superior court found the FSSA procedures as a whole satisfied procedural due process, but issued a declaratory judgment and injunction against FSSA because the agency had violated federal law governing SNAP by utilizing a “failure to cooperate” standard as opposed to a “refusal to cooperate” standard. The COA reversed on the due process issue and affirmed the declaratory judgment and injunction regarding SNAP.

In Rodney Nicholson v. State of Indiana, No. 55S01-1107-CR-444, the Court of Appeals was divided in reversing Rodney Nicholson’s stalking conviction. The decision looked at the term “repeated” in Indiana’s anti-stalking laws and the majority held that the state didn’t prove Nicholson’s conduct under the stalking statute was “repeated or continuing” harassment. The majority noted that the Legislature hadn’t put definitive time limitations in the statute.

Judge Cale Bradford dissented, believing the gap of time between the repeated conduct aimed at the same victim is a “non-factor” under the wording of the statute.

In Harold J. Klinker v. First Merchants Bank, N.A., No. 01S04-1107-PL-438, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for First Merchants Bank in its complaint for fraud and damages against Harold Klinker, who had borrowed money to buy cars for his used car dealership. Although the trial court should have considered Klinker’s affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, as the appellate court found the affidavit was properly designated in his memorandum, the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment for the bank.

The justices also took Hugh David Reed v. Edward Reid, Reid Machinery Inc., et al., No. 40S01-1107-PL-436, a civil case out of Jennings County that has not been heard by the Court of Appeals.

The high court denied transfer to 25 cases. The justices didn’t accept or deny any cases for the week ending July 15.
 

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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT