ILNews

Justices to hear 3 arguments Thursday

Michael W. Hoskins
June 24, 2009
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear three cases on Thursday morning, including one that deals with incest confessions to police, and a second involving a police officer's claims for injuries he received while responding to a complaint at a strip club.

Larry McGhee v. State of Indiana, No. 48A02-0804-CR-345: a Madison County case where an investigating police officer told Larry McGhee that sexual encounters with adult relatives are not against the law, and McGhee then confessed to one. That confession was admitted at trial and he was convicted of incest. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed in McGhee v. State, 899 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), and justices are determining whether to accept transfer.

Babes Showclub v. Patrick Lair, No. 49S05-0905-CV-214: a Marion County case involving an Indianapolis police officer who was responding to a complaint at Babes Showclub and was injured by an underage patron. The trial court denied the showclub's motion to dismiss the officer's general negligence, negligent security, and common law dram shop claims. But the Court of Appeals reversed earlier this year, holding that the Fireman's Rule barred the officer's claims.

Indiana Family & Social Services Administration v. Alice Meyer, No. 69S01-0905-CV-233: a Ripley County case where the Alice Meyer Trust petitioned for judicial review of a decision by the FSSA. After the trust failed to transmit the agency record by an extended deadline set by the Ripley Circuit Court, the FSSA moved to dismiss the petition. The court denied that motion, granted the trust's motion to file a belated record, and ruled on the petition for review. The FSSA appealed that dismissal motion denial, and the Court of Appeals earlier this year issued a split decision in Indiana Fam. & Soc. Serv. Admin. v. Meyer, 900 N.E.2d 74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), where one judge affirmed, the second only concurred in result, while the third judge dissented.

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT