ILNews

Justices grant five transfers

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted five new cases.

At its weekly conference Aug. 28, justices granted transfer in two civil cases, two criminal cases, and a tax court case.

• Brenda and Darren Wagner v. Bobbi Yates, et al., No. 22A01-0710-CV-474: An underinsured motorist policy case from Floyd County. The Court of Appeals in April affirmed the lower court's granting of a motion for summary judgment in favor of American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin, the Wagners' automobile insurer. The court ruled that American Standard can set off payments made by State Farm under its Underinsured Motorist Coverage to the Wagners, and so it declined to address the issue of whether an anti-stacking clause exists in the policy.
• Kitchin Hospitality LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, No. 49T10-0604-TA-35: A not-for-publication tax case from March where the Tax Court denied the state agency's motion for summary judgment and granted Kitchin's motion for summary judgment, holding that during the years at issue utilities consumed in some hotel rooms qualified for tangible personal property exemptions under Indiana Code § 6-2.5-5-35(2)(B)(i).
• Keith Myers v. Wesley C. Leedy, No. 85A02-0711-CV-999: a case from Wabash County where the Court of Appeals in April reversed and remanded a lower court's decision that Leedy's interest in a piece of property as a tenant survived the forfeiture of his landlord's land sale contract.
• Tony R. Gray v. State of Indiana, No. 10A01-0708-CR-356: a Clark County case where the Court of Appeals in a June not-for-publication opinion affirmed convictions on two counts of robbery and three counts of criminal confinement.
• State of Indiana v. Shannon Hollars, No. 12A02-0711-CR-979: a Clinton County case that the Court of Appeals reversed in June, concluding that the lower court abused its discretion in granting Hollars' motion to correct error. The appellate court found the three perceived errors - jury instruction, a discovery violation, and timing of the search warrant execution - didn't warrant a new attempted murder trial, either individually or collectively, and therefore the court reinstated the jury's verdict and the 22-year sentence.
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. Residents can't vote under our current system? Okay, let's replace the system with another system where they can't vote. Yeah, that's the ticket!

  2. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  3. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  4. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  5. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

ADVERTISEMENT