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. 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