ILNews

Justices to hear 5 cases in next 2 days

IL Staff
September 27, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court hears five arguments in the next two days. Two are scheduled for Wednesday, and three will be heard on Thursday.

Wednesday at 9 a.m., the court will hear arguments in Troy R. Smith v. State of Indiana, No. 35S02-1106-CR-369, a Huntington County case involving a man who pleaded guilty to non-support of a dependent child and was placed on probation. Later, the Huntington Superior Court revoked probation when Smith did not continue paying the full amount of support. The Court of Appeals reversed on grounds the state had not proved Smith’s ability to pay and the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation in full.

At 9:45 a.m., the justices will hear Indiana Department of Revenue v. AOL, LLC, No. 49S10-1108-TA-514. The state agency denied AOL’s claim for a refund for use tax paid on its in-state use of certain promotional materials sent to prospective and existing customers. On AOL’s original tax appeal, the Tax Court issued an unpublished order granting summary judgment to AOL.

A third argument scheduled for Wednesday – Indiana Department of Revenue v. United Parcel Service, Inc. – was cancelled.

On Thursday, the justices will hear three sets of arguments:
At  9 a.m., the justices will hear Sheila Perdue, et al. v. Michael Gargano, et al., No. 49S02-1107-PL-437. Plaintiffs brought a class action against Family and Social Services Administration seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the administration of Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. Sheila Perdue also brought an individual disability discrimination claim. The trial court granted summary judgment to FSSA on plaintiffs’ claim that their procedural due process rights were violated, but granted summary judgment to Perdue individually and to the class of SNAP applicants/recipients whose benefits were denied or terminated for failure to cooperate. On cross-appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment as to Perdue and as to those whose SNAP benefits were denied or terminated for failure to cooperate, and it reversed the award of summary judgment to FSSA, holding the procedures at issue did not afford plaintiffs due process.

At 9:45 a.m., the court hears Harold J. Klinker v. First Merchants Bank, No. 01S04-1107-PL-438. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for First Merchants Bank on its claims against Harold Klinker, including a fraud claim, and the order that he pay treble damages. The appellate court concluded that Klinker’s affidavit denying fraudulent intent and opposing summary judgment failed to show a genuine issue of material fact.

At 10:30 a.m., the court hears Rodney Nicholson v. State of Indiana, No. 55S01-1107-CR-444. Rodney Nicholson was found guilty of Class C felony stalking, but the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed due to insufficient evidence.
 

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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT