Justices grant five transfers

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
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.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.