ILNews

Justices take 6 cases, reject 26

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT