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. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT