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court found disputes of material fact and ordered the trial court to take a closer look at whether the insurer rescinded the policy after discovering the misrepresentations.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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT