ILNews

Justices grant 2 transfers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to consider cases that involve a trial court's handling of a mentally ill murder defendant, and whether the First Amendment protects a volunteer firefighter's e-mails about the township department's financial situation.

Justices granted transfer in two cases during its weekly conference on April 1, when it considered a total of 17 cases.

Gregory L. Galloway v. State of Indiana, No. 33A02-0906-CR-280, which involves a murder case out of Henry Circuit Court where the defendant claimed he should have been acquitted because of mental insanity. The Court of Appeals in January affirmed the lower court's finding that he was guilty but mentally ill for the 2007 murder of his grandmother. The appellate court found that Thompson v. State, 804 N.E. 2d 1146 (Ind. 2004), compelled it to leave the judgment in place, despite the appellate judges' sympathy for Galloway's circumstances.

Bradley J. Love v. Robert Rehfus, individually and in his capacity as fire chief of the Sugar Creek Township Fire Department, and Sugar Creek Township, No. 30A01-0905-CV-250, which involves volunteer and part-time firefighter Bradley Love's firing about an e-mail he sent out about the department's financial situation. He won his first round of appeals of the trial court's summary judgment granting in favor of fire chief Robert Rehfus and Sugar Creek Township. The trial court ruled as a matter of law that Love didn't engage in protected First Amendment activity when sending the e-mail. Using precedent from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1968 and another by the Indiana Court of Appeals in 2006, the appellate court concluded the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that caselaw says if no damage is proven, then the statements may be protected even if they are false.

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT