ILNews

Justices take 6 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer to six cases and declined to take 22 others.

In State of Indiana v. Andy J. Velasquez II, No. 53S05-1105-CR-280, the state appealed following the acquittal of Andy Velasquez for Class A felony and Class C felony child molesting of his stepdaughter. The state argued, among other issues, that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding the testimony of clinical social worker Judy Kline, psychologist Dr. Jennifer Spencer, and victim G.S.’s grandmother constituted vouching testimony.

The Indiana Court of Appeals found the trial court erred in excluding their testimonies, but double jeopardy grounds barred a second trial since Velasquez had been acquitted.

In Keith M. Ramsey, M.D. v. Shella Moore, et al., No. 45S05-1105-CT-281, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Methodist Hospital’s motion to dismiss Shella Moore’s proposed medical malpractice claim, but reversed the denial of Dr. Keith Ramsey’s motion to dismiss Moore’s medical malpractice complaint against him. The appellate court was split as to whether the trial court’s disposition in this case was final.

In Indiana Department of Insurance, et al. v. Robin Everhart, No. 84S01-1105-CV-282, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment in favor of Robin Everhart on her claim against the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund. The judges held it isn’t consistent with Supreme Court precedent to hold the fund liable for more than the increased risk of harm that the doctor caused. Several months later, the appellate court split in denying a rehearing on the matter.

Judge Margret Robb wanted to grant the rehearing and believed the appellate court shouldn’t have applied Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 323 in the original opinion. Section 323 outlines that one is liable for harm to another if the failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm. It allows the plaintiff to avoid summary judgment on the issue of proximate cause even when there was a less than 50 percent chance of recovery absent the negligence.

In LaPorte Community School Corp., et al. v. Maria Rosales, No. 46S04-1105-CT-284, the appellate court held the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion by admitting deposition testimony from an expert regarding school safety and school emergency plans. The judges also found the trial court properly denied the school’s motion for judgment on the evidence as to negligence and properly granted Maria Rosales’ motion for judgment on the evidence as to contributory negligence. They also concluded the jury wasn’t properly instructed regarding negligence and that was a reversible error. The matter was remanded for a new trial. Judge Terry Crone concurred in part and dissented in part.

In D.R. v. Review Board, No. 93S02-1105-EX-285, the Court of Appeals released a not-for-publication opinion affirming the decision by the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development denying D.R.’s unemployment benefits. D.R. claimed the record didn’t support the board’s decision to deny her full unemployment benefits.

In Antoine D. Hill v. State of Indiana, No. 45S03-1105-PC-283, the COA reversed the denial of Antoine Hill’s petition for post-conviction relief in an NFP decision. They concluded Hill’s post-conviction attorney abandoned him on appeal, so he was denied the fair setting for post-conviction relief contemplated by Baum v. State, 533 N.E.2d 1200 (Ind. 1989). They remanded with instructions to grant his petition.  

In addition to denying transfer to 22 cases, the justices vacated an order granting transfer to Tonya M. Peete v. State of Indiana, No. 49S05-1104-CR-201; and dismissed Dan Cristiani Excavating Co. Inc v. Jeremy & Kerri Money, No. 10A05-1002-CT-114.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT