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court found disputes of material fact and ordered the trial court to take a closer look at whether the insurer rescinded the policy after discovering the misrepresentations.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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT