ILNews

Justices take case alleging Wabash hazing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will determine whether a college and a fraternity are liable for injuries a student received as a result of a prank, and whether the incident rises to hazing.

Justices on Monday agreed to hear Brian Yost v. Wabash College, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc., Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity - Indiana Gamma Chapter at Wabash College, and Nathan Cravens, 54A01-1201-CT-31, which divided a Court of Appeals panel. The majority found that a “showering” episode in which four fraternity brothers forcibly carried Yost to the shower and ran water on him was not hazing. Judge Nancy Vaidik dissented.

Yost said he was placed in a chokehold, lost consciousness and was injured during the showering, and he eventually withdrew from college.

Justices on Monday also granted transfer in four other cases. They are:

  • Phillip T. Billingsley v. State of Indiana, 02A05-1204-CR-216, in which a man convicted of Class D felony possession of marijuana appeals had his motion to suppress evidence denied.
  • American Cold Storage, et al. v. The City of Boonville, 87A01-1112-PL-610, in which a divided appeals court reversed a trial court decision upholding an annexation by the city, holding that the trial court erred by counting separate state-owned parcels of a highway for purposes of remonstrance.
  • Patrick Austin v. State of Indiana, 20A03-1112-CR-588, in which the Court of Appeals rejected Patrick Austin’s bid to overturn two Class A felony possession of cocaine convictions because he was denied a speedy trial and because a tendered jury instruction was rejected.
  •  In the Matter of the Adoption of Minor Children: C.B.M. and C.R.M.: C.A.B. v. J.D.M. and K.L.M., 37A03-1204-AD-149, in which an appellate panel reversed a trial court and ruled that a birth mother was denied due process when her children were adopted while an appeal of her termination of parental rights was pending.


Justices declined to grant transfer in 20 cases. Transfers for the week ending March 8 may be viewed here.



 

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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT