ILNews

Justices take 6 cases, reject 26

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer in six of 32 cases reviewed in the week ending Dec. 14, according to the transfer disposition list posted Monday on the court website. 

Among the cases the court will hear is Mary Elizabeth Santelli, as Administrator of the Estate of James F. Santelli v. Abu M. Rahmatullah, individually, and d/b/a Super 8 Motel, 49S04-1212-CT-667. The case dates to a 2005 murder of a hotel guest by a former employee who gained entry to the guest’s room with a keycard he retained after he left employment.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to the Marion Superior Court an award in excess of $2 million to the estate for a new trial. Questions arising on the appeal, in which both the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana and the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association filed amicus briefs, include whether the state’s Comparative Fault Act abrogates the common law very duty doctrine and whether a jury should have been allowed to allocate fault to the victim.

Also on the transfer docket was Cory Heinzman v. State of Indiana, 29S02-1212-CR-678, in which justices remanded for re-entry of a sentence for Cory Heinzman, a former child protective services caseworker in Hamilton County convicted of multiple charges of official misconduct and sex offenses against minors. 

Also granted transfer were:

  • State of Indiana v. Russell Oney, 49S05-1212-CR-668
  • Jamar Washington v. State of Indiana, 49S02-1212-CR-669
  • Andrew Humphreys v. State of Indiana, 79S04-1212-CR-670
  • Hassan Alsheik v. Alice Guerrero, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of I.A., Deceased, 45S04-1212-CT-675, one of four opinions issued Dec. 12 regarding prejudgment interest. 



 


 

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. Interesting that the new laws in criminal code all involve voter fraud

  2. I'm getting divorced and we have prenuptial and judge said it stands even though he made me sign it 2 days before wedding then I be c ame ill and left with nothing butbills

  3. No irony here, John. Conour’s clients are wise to him. Evidently you’ve missed discovery that disclosed Conour was aware he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, actually many cookie jars, but continued to spend any monies he secured on himself and his lifestyle. Your theory is idealistic and assumes Conour has the soul of a good attorney and therefore he would take care of his clients. Conour has no soul. He greedily took awarded settlements from his disabled clients and spent it on his own edacious desires. You are naïve to think if he kept working he would put his fees into a restitution fund. He is who he is and has proven he will use any means to cheat and manipulate those who trust him and the judicial system that is supposed to protect them. Sorry John, you don’t send the fox back into the hen house after he’s caught devouring the hens. Conour can’t be trusted. He has no more honor than that fox.

  4. The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.

  5. the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution

ADVERTISEMENT