Indiana Supreme Court Transfers

Justices remand post-conviction case to COA

December 19, 2016
IL Staff
A man’s post-conviction relief case dismissed by the Court of Appeals was remanded by the Indiana Supreme Court, which found an appendix was timely filed.
More

Justices to hear case of man convicted of mistreating police dog

December 12, 2016
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court will decide if South Bend police officers unnecessarily deployed the use of Tasers and a police dog on a man stopped during a traffic pursuit after granting transfer in the case of a man convicted of mistreating K-9 officer.
More

Indiana Supreme Court grants transfer in parental rights case

December 5, 2016
Olivia Covington
Indiana’s highest court has agreed to hear a case regarding the termination of two parents’ rights to their children, with the father arguing that his rights should be restored because the Indiana Department of Child Services failed to file the termination petition within the required legal time frame.
More

High court takes alcohol wholesaler case

November 28, 2016
Olivia Covington
The Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could decide whether beer and wine wholesalers can also be legally permitted to sell liquor in Indiana.
More

Supreme Court grants transfer in cellphone data privacy case

November 7, 2016
Olivia Covington
After an Ohio man’s convictions of armed robbery in Dearborn County were overturned by a divided Indiana Court of Appeals in August, the Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to hear the state’s appeal and decide if cellphone users have a reasonable expectation to the privacy of their tracked location information.
More

Indiana Supreme Court grants transfer in injured immigrant worker's case

October 24, 2016
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court will decide if an undocumented Mexican immigrant who was injured on the job in Indiana should receive compensation based on wages for his job in the United States or based on wages for the same job in Mexico.
More

Supreme Court takes post-conviction case of convicted murderer

September 19, 2016
Olivia Covington
The Indiana Supreme Court will decide if a man convicted of murder in 1996 should be granted post-conviction relief based on the fact that his trial counsel was ineffective and his petition is not barred by laches.
More

Supreme Court affirms sentence of man convicted of child solicitation against niece

September 15, 2016
Olivia Covington
The Indiana Supreme Court has affirmed a trial court’s sentence for a man convicted of felony child solicitation against his teenage niece after it granted the state’s petition for transfer on Wednesday.
More

Justices take case on DCS caller confidentiality

September 6, 2016
Dave Stafford
The Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether the Indiana Department of Child Services may be sued for failing to maintain the confidentiality of a caller who reported suspected child neglect.
More

Indiana Supreme Court takes 4th Amendment case

August 16, 2016
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court took two cases on transfer last week, including whether a police officer was within his community caretaker function when he pulled over a woman after she left a gas station.
More

Justices decline newborn blood sample case

August 1, 2016
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court will not hear the appeal of an Indiana couple who wanted their child’s blood, taken when she was born, destroyed instead of being stored by the state.
More

Justices take just 1 case on transfer

July 19, 2016
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to one case last week, a criminal matter in which it issued its decision the same day it accepted it.
More

Indiana Supreme Court grants transfer to 4 cases

June 27, 2016
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to four cases last week, including a decision that divided the Court of Appeals as to whether to provide a defendant a video copy of his controlled drug buy.
More

Supreme Court grants transfer to insurance case

May 9, 2016
Scott Roberts
The Indiana Supreme Court accepted one case out of the 24 cases up for transfer last week, a case involving a lawsuit seeking underinsured motorist coverage.
More

Indiana Supreme Court accepts 1 case on transfer

April 25, 2016
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer in one case last week that it decided Friday, unanimously denying the 12 others that were up for transfer.
More

Indiana Supreme Court accepts 3 cases

April 18, 2016
Scott Roberts
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to three cases out of 13 this week and denied one by a 3-2 vote.
More

Justices take 2 cases, deny 18

April 11, 2016
Scott Roberts
The Indiana Supreme Court granted two of 20 transfer requests and decided the cases last week, but four more cases were denied with split decisions.
More

Supreme Court takes protection order case

March 21, 2016
Scott Roberts
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to one case last week, denying seven other petitions.
More

Indiana justices take case involving denied deposition request

January 25, 2016
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether a man on trial for a drug charge should have been allowed to depose two witnesses before trial. The issue divided the Indiana Court of Appeals in September.
More

Split court reverses dismissal of complaint against probation officers

December 22, 2015
The Indiana Supreme Court decided 3-2 Tuesday to reverse the dismissal of a man’s claims arising out of his incarceration for a probation violation that allegedly occurred after his term of probation had expired.
More

Justices to decide dealership relocation dispute

December 3, 2015
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court is going to decide whether a Toyota dealership can relocate from Anderson to Fishers over the objections of three existing greater Indianapolis Toyota dealers.
More

Supreme Court takes up property tax refund dispute

November 2, 2015
Dave Stafford
Whether the owners of an industrial property who were in default on a mortgage are entitled to a property tax refund is a question the Indiana Supreme Court will decide.
More

Justices to hear Fortville annexation case

October 26, 2015
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court will have its say on three cases it took on transfer last week, including the town of Fortville’s efforts to annex nearly 600 acres.
More

Justices to review day care couple’s manslaughter convictions

October 13, 2015
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether a couple convicted of involuntary manslaughter after a child died in their home-based Fishers day care should get new trials.
More

Indiana's high court takes up lawmaker email case

October 7, 2015
 Associated Press
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear an appeal involving a lawsuit seeking a lawmaker's emails and other correspondence with utility company officials over solar power legislation he sponsored.
More
Page  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> pager
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  2. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  3. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  4. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  5. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

ADVERTISEMENT