The Indiana Supreme Court granted three transfers and dismissed one case during its conference late last week, when the justices
examined a total 35
cases that were before them for possible transfer.
The City of Indianapolis, et al. v. Christine Armour, et al., No. 49S02-1007-CV-402, which the Court of Appeals
had ruled on Dec. 30, 2009. The appeal stems from a class-action lawsuit involving 2004 sewer assessments, in which 30 property
owners had paid up-front assessments of $9,278 apiece while other neighbors had started installment plans of $309 apiece.
The city ultimately abandoned the Barrett Law in favor of a flat $2,500 fee apiece for future hookups. An appellate panel
had ordered the city to issue refunds of $8,968 to the 30 households in the Northern Estates subdivision, but now the justices
have accepted the case.
Matthew A. Baugh v. State of Indiana, No. 18S04-1007-CR-398, which comes from a 2-1 ruling in May by the Court of
Appeals. The majority determined the defendant had waived his claim that the trial court failed to comply with the statutory
requirements for making a sexually violent predator determination. Chief Judge John Baker and Judge Terry Crone ruled the
issue waived because Baugh failed to object to the determination at sentencing, but Judge Carr Darden dissented and wrote:
“How could a constitutionally competent attorney allow his client to suffer the consequences that befell Baugh without
advising him of the statutorily required hearing, at which he could subject the experts' conclusions to the crucible of
cross-examination?”
David Hopper v. State of Indiana, No. 13S01-1007-PC-399, in which the Court of Appeals had ruled in April that the
requirement to advise a defendant of the dangers of self-representation and the benefit of counsel applies equally regardless
of whether a pro se defendant is choosing to plead guilty or go to trial.
In five of the other appeals that justices denied transfer on, three got a single vote supporting transfer while Justice
Theodore R. Boehm didn’t participate in the transfer-denying decisions of two others. The justices also dismissed the
case of Saul I. Ruman, et. al. v. Denise Benjamin, No. 64A05-0901-CV-39, in which the appellate court late last year
had decided to affirm Denise Benjamin’s motion to correct error when the trial court had vacated an earlier summary
judgment entry for Saul Ruman.














I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.