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

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT