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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT