Court opinions

Justices divided on proper sanction for attorney actions

January 18, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The majority of Indiana Supreme Court justices found the trial court was within its discretion to dismiss a personal injury action because of the plaintiff’s attorney’s actions.
More

Justices reverse determinate commitment

January 18, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
In a three-page per curiam opinion released Wednesday by the Indiana Supreme Court, the justices reversed a juvenile’s determinate commitment to the Department of Correction for committing what would be felony murder if committed by an adult.
More

COA clarifies ruling in negligent hiring lawsuit

January 18, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed their decision to reverse the grant of an insurer’s motion for summary judgment against the parent company of a hotel. On rehearing, the appellate court denied that the other defendants involved in the lawsuit should benefit from the decision regarding Holiday Hospitality Franchising because the other parties didn’t appeal the original ruling.
More

Court splits over motion for discharge ruling

January 18, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
An Indiana Court of Appeals judge dissented from his colleagues in a Criminal Rule 4(B) motion for discharge case, disagreeing with the interpretation of language in Jenkins v. State regarding the relevant time for purposes of determining whether a defendant can file a pro se motion for a speedy trial.
More

Indiana court decisions Jan. 1 to 11, 2012

January 18, 2012
IL Staff
Read summaries of the For Publications from the Indiana appellate courts and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
More

7th Circuit upholds Indiana law on wine shipping

January 17, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld an Indiana statute that prevents alcohol retailers from shipping their products to consumers by using a motor carrier such as UPS, and the state has the authority to regulate those shipments through the 21st Amendment.
More

Deputy prosecutor receives public reprimand

January 13, 2012
Michael Hoskins
A Hancock County deputy prosecutor has received a public reprimand from the Indiana Supreme Court for surrendering prosecutorial discretion and allowing a corporate check fraud victim to dictate the terms of restitution as a pre-condition to a plea agreement.
More

COA: trial courts can limit administrative review

January 13, 2012
Michael Hoskins
State law allows a trial court to decline to hold a jury trial and limit its review of a local municipality’s administrative decision, according to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
More

7th Circuit affirms deputy sheriff's firing

January 13, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has determined the Warrick County Sheriff’s Department didn’t break the law when it fired a probationary deputy sheriff based on violations of standard operating procedures, failure to follow orders and insufficient commitment to the job.
More

State representative's attacker permanently disbarred

January 13, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The Indianapolis attorney who violently attacked and attempted to kill a state representative has been permanently disbarred by the Indiana Supreme Court.
More

High court reverses habitual offender enhancement

January 12, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
Because the state didn’t offer allowable evidence of a man’s previous theft conviction to support a habitual offender enhancement, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the enhancement.
More

Justices dismiss malpractice complaint appeal

January 12, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court has vacated transfer to a case involving a proposed medical malpractice claim, finding that the trial court order at issue is not a final appealable judgment.
More

COA affirms murder conviction

January 11, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals found the state presented sufficient substantive evidence to establish that a man killed his sister’s boyfriend while staying in her apartment.
More

Appellate court upholds easement ruling

January 11, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court judgment in favor of the owners of a RV campground regarding an access easement.
More

Judges rule on Clark County surveyor's suit

January 11, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the former Clark County surveyor in his request that he should have been involved in a project involving Lancassange Creek. But the judges reversed summary judgment for the surveyor regarding whether he should have been involved in a project in a subdivision.
More

Judges order pharmacy board to respond to subpoena

January 11, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
A Marion Superior trial court erred in granting the Indiana Board of Pharmacy’s motion to quash a defendant’s subpoena that the board produce a certified copy of “any and all” of his prescription records so he could use the information as defense for the charges of possession of a controlled substance, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.
More

Court upholds summary judgment in favor of New Castle

January 11, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed that a contractor and insurance company owe the city of New Castle more than $900,000 in damages and attorney fees for breaching a construction contract.
More

COA upholds attorney's 11-year sentence

January 11, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Roanoke attorney who stole more than $200,000 from his clients will not have his sentence reduced, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided Wednesday.
More

Justices divided on whether accident is covered by policy

January 10, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled 3-1 Tuesday that an insurer for the Indiana Youth Soccer Association does not have to provide coverage for an accident involving a Carmel team during a trip to Colorado for a soccer tournament.
More

SCOTUS denies Indiana church dispute

January 9, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to take an Indiana case involving a property and trustee election dispute between the Zion Temple Apostolic Church in Gary and the son of the deceased founding pastor.
More

Indiana Supreme Court will hear IBM case

January 9, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether Gov. Mitch Daniels must appear for a deposition and testify in an ongoing lawsuit challenging the cancelled IBM contract to modernize the state’s welfare system.
More

Judges examine double jeopardy issues in child support case

January 6, 2012
Michael Hoskins

The Indiana Court of Appeals has found a man’s three convictions on non-payment of child support for his three children don't violate double jeopardy principles, even though that issue is currently pending in another case before the Indiana Supreme Court.

More

Court finds police lacked reasonable suspicion for stop and search

January 6, 2012
Michael Hoskins
Finding that an Indianapolis police officer didn’t have reasonable suspicion or consent to stop a man acting suspiciously in a gas station parking lot, the Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed two fraud convictions involving the possession of movie DVDs that weren’t yet on the market.
More

7th Circuit to hear arguments in NCAA price-fixing lawsuit

January 5, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments Monday in a case brought by two former NCAA athletes whose scholarships were revoked after injuries. The litigants claim that they were wrongly denied multi-year scholarships that would have covered the cost of their bachelor’s degrees.
More

State Supreme Court's robo-calls ruling carries over to federal lawsuit

January 5, 2012
Michael Hoskins
A ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court upholding the state’s automated phone call ban has found its way into the briefing of a federal appeal challenging the same statute, and the attorneys disagree on whether the state justices adequately addressed a First Amendment issue.
More
Page  << 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 >> pager
Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT