ILNews

Justices take 2 cases

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted the case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals split in reversing a man’s Class A felony attempted murder conviction.

The justices took Tyrus D. Coleman v. State of Indiana, No. 20S03-1008-CR-458, in which the majority ruled the doctrine of issue preclusion barred the state from re-litgating the issue of whether Tyrus Coleman’s actions against Anthony Dye constituted attempted murder. Coleman shot Dye twice during a confrontation at a recording studio.

The majority reversed the denial of Coleman’s motion to dismiss his attempted murder charge by reason of collateral estoppel. The jury wasn’t able to reach a verdict as to his attempted murder charge and another trial on that charge was scheduled.

Judge Carr Darden dissented, disagreeing that issue preclusion applies to the instant case. He concluded the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in allowing Coleman to be re-tried for attempted murder.

The justices issued an order Monday accepting transfer in the case Lamar Advertising Inc. v. View Outdoor Advertising LLC and State of Indiana, Dept. of Transportation, No. 49S05-1008-CV-459. They summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision instructing the Indiana Department of Transportation to allow the parties to file new applications for a billboard permit and the lower court’s interpretation of an administrative rule as requiring INDOT to grant the first valid application it receives.

The Supreme Court also ordered INDOT to treat as concurrently filed any billboard permit application it gets from the parties within three business days of the date on which the Clerk certifies this order as final.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT