ILNews

Justices take 5 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer to five cases last week, including a challenge to the school voucher program.

The justices will hear Teresa Meredith, Dr. Edward E. Eiler, Richard E. Hamilton, Sheila Kennedy, Glenda Ritz, et al. v. Mitch Daniels, in his official capacity as Governor of Indiana, Dr. Tony Bennett, et al., No. 49S00-1203-PL-172, which is the constitutional challenge to the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program. The high court took the case directly from the trial level. A Marion Superior judge ruled the voucher program that allows parents to send their children to private schools, is constitutional.

The justice took Virginia Garwood and Kristin Garwood v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, No. 82S10-1203-TA-171, in which Tax Judge Martha Wentworth ruled against the state department regarding its use of a criminal tax evasion tool – jeopardy tax assessments – to go after Virginia and Kristin Garwood, whom the state alleged were running an illegal puppy mill. Wentworth ruled the state didn’t prove it had enough justification to issue the jeopardy assessments in this situation.

The high court will also hear:

In the Matter of: T.N.; G.N. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc., No. 49S05-1203-JC-165, in which the Indiana Court of Appeals found that a father’s due process rights were denied because he didn’t receive the opportunity for a fact-finding hearing. The appellate court held that fact-finding and dispositional hearings in a child in need of services case aren’t interchangeable.

Michael Dodd and Katherine Dodd v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, No. 12S02-1203-CT-170, which deals with material misrepresentations on an application for homeowners’ insurance and whether American Family Mutual could deny the Dodds’ claim after their garage was destroyed by a fire. The appellate court found disputes of material fact and ordered the trial court to take a closer look at whether the insurer rescinded the policy after discovering the misrepresentations.

Jesse J. Harris, Jr. v. State of Indiana, No. 34S02-1203-CR-169, which in a not-for-publication opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed Harris’ convictions of and sentence for felony murder and two counts of Class A felony attempted murder.

The justices also denied 18 cases for the week ending March 16.

 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT