Dissent
Tax exemption doesn't apply to hotel utilities
June 17, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court was split today in its ruling on whether a hotel was entitled to a sales tax exemption on utilities
it purchased during 2004 and 2005.
MoreJudges differ on pretrial credit award
June 12, 2009
Jennifer NelsonEach judge on an Indiana Court of Appeals panel weighed in with a separate opinion as to how much pretrial credit time a defendant,
who pleaded guilty to one charge - other charges were dismissed - is entitled to, or if he is entitled to any time at all.
MoreCOA: Park ban violates ex post facto laws
June 9, 2009
Jennifer NelsonRelying heavily on a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision regarding sex offenders and ex post facto laws, the Indiana Court
of Appeals split in finding a city ordinance banning a convicted sex offender who no longer has to register with the state
was punitive and unconstitutional as applied to him.
MoreJustices dismiss public school funding case
June 2, 2009
Michael HoskinsEven if Indiana's public school system falls short of where it should be in providing quality education, courts aren't
constitutionally able to set standards or establish a financing formula because that's a task falling solely to the General
Assembly.
MoreJustices: License plates can't be in rear windows
May 29, 2009
Michael HoskinsJustice Robert Rucker says his four Indiana Supreme Court colleagues have issued a ruling that transforms millions of law-abiding
residents into traffic offenders.
MoreJudges disagree on statute's constitutionality
May 20, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue with great relevance given today's advances in technology and social networking, the Indiana Court of Appeals
concluded someone who uses a computer to download an electronic image and save it on a CD doesn't "create" a
digitalized image under the child-exploitation statute.
MoreJudges differ in non-compete agreement case
May 18, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn a legal dispute regarding a non-compete agreement, the Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed as to whether the agreement
could be enforced if the former employee's clients voluntarily left and contacted him to continue to be their accountant.
MoreBMV policy needed to prevent identity theft
May 15, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe inconvenience of a few Hoosiers outweighs the very real threat of identity theft, so the trial court was correct in denying
a preliminary injunction against the Bureau of Motor Vehicle's verification of records using Social Security Administration
data, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreHigh court reverses termination of mom's rights
April 27, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe majority of Indiana Supreme Court justices ruled in a parental termination case that the evidence presented didn't
clearly show a mother's rights to her son should be terminated. One justice dissented because he believes an appellate
court should defer to the lower court in assessing the facts of a case.
MoreCOA invites high court to revisit Indiana law
April 24, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn a case involving the purchase of a home, Indiana Court of Appeals judges today disagreed as to whether the home sellers
should be granted summary judgment in a fraud suit. The judges unanimously did agree to encourage the Indiana Supreme Court
to re-evaluate a rule that protects a seller from a lawsuit, even if he lies about a property, as long as the prospective
buyer had a reasonable opportunity to inspect the property.
MoreJustices affirm cop killer's death sentence
April 1, 2009
Michael HoskinsA man sentenced to die for fatally shooting a Morgan County sheriff's deputy in 2001 will remain on death row despite
his appellate claims he's mentally ill and not eligible for execution.
MoreHigh court addresses Protected Person Statute
March 31, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAddressing for the first time under the current Rules of Evidence a case regarding a protected person testifying at trial
as well as by videotape or other statement, the Indiana Supreme Court held that if the statements are consistent and both
are otherwise admissible, testimony of a protected person can't be presented both in open court and in a pre-recorded
statement through the Protected Person Statute.
MoreFirst impression in 'non-suspension' rule case
March 31, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals determined in a case of first impression that the state's 'non-suspension rule' in
Indiana Code depends on the status of the prior criminal conviction at the time of sentencing for a subsequent conviction.
MoreCasino wins compulsive gambling appeal
March 20, 2009
Michael HoskinsCasinos don't have a common law duty to protect compulsive gamblers from themselves, and aren't required to refrain
from trying to entice those people into their establishments, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today in a matter of first
impression.
MoreJudges split in termination ruling
March 20, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an opinion involving whether a worker was fired for just cause after multiple excused absences, the majority acknowledged
the split in the Indiana Court of Appeals regarding the reasonableness of "no-fault" attendance policies.
MoreHigh court: land seller not liable in death
March 10, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAddressing an issue of first impression today, the Indiana Supreme Court considered under what circumstances a vendor
of land may be liable to a third party for harm resulting from the condition of trees on the property near a road.
MoreJudges disagree on proof-of-age issue
March 6, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIndiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed today about whether the state proved in its case a convicted child molester was
21 years old at the time the molestation occurred.
MorePanel disagrees in admitting expert testimony
March 5, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today that a trial court didn't err in allowing into evidence an injured woman's
testimony about medical tests and the cause of her pain.
MoreSupreme Court disbars attorney
March 2, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA split Indiana Supreme Court voted to immediately disbar an Indianapolis attorney who pleaded guilty to one count of willfully
making a false tax return.
MoreHigh court vacates transfer
February 27, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court vacated transfer yesterday in a case in which a defendant appealed his convictions of voluntary
manslaughter, carrying a handgun without a license, and finding that he was a habitual offender.
MoreJudges disagree on if remand is necessary
February 11, 2009
Jennifer MehalikThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a trial court's grant of an ex-wife's petition for additional relief
for funds, finding the trial court didn't hear evidence on certain "critical" factors. The judges on appeal
didn't agree as to whether the case should be remanded.
MoreJustices split in granting transfer
February 4, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court was split in its decision to deny transfer in a case in which a defendant claimed misconduct by
the prosecutor when he read a poem about drugs during voir dire.
More
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!