Judge Nancy H. Vaidik
COA: admitting teen's confession was a fundamental error
November 29, 2010
Jennifer NelsonAn Indiana Court of Appeals decision today places a burden on police officers to make sure interview room video cameras don’t
infringe upon meaningful consultation when a juvenile is involved.
MoreAppellate court affirms judgment in coverage dispute
November 22, 2010
Jennifer NelsonIndiana Evidence Rule 407 may bar evidence of subsequent insurance policy revisions offered to resolve ambiguity in an executed
insurance contract, the Indiana Court of Appeals held today.
MoreTicket can't constitute 'testimonial hearsay'
November 8, 2010
Jennifer NelsonBecause a chemical breath-test evidence ticket is a mechanically produced readout that can’t be considered “testimonial
hearsay” under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the Indiana Court of Appeals held a man’s Sixth Amendment rights
weren’t violated when the equipment technician didn’t testify at his drunk-driving trial.
MoreCourt splits on public intoxication conviction
October 21, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals split today on whether a woman’s conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication
should be reversed because she wasn’t in a public place within the meaning of Indiana Code at the time police stopped
her car.
MoreJuvenile's records not protected by counselor/client privilege
October 20, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Howard Superior Court erred in finding that the counselor/client privilege prevented the admission of a son’s counseling
records during a custody modification hearing, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreFirst impression case on mouthpieces as 'foreign substance'
September 30, 2010
Jennifer NelsonIn a matter of first impression, a portable breath test mouthpiece isn’t a foreign substance that will act to invalidate
the results of a blood alcohol content Datamaster chemical breath test, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreAppellate court finds lawsuit brought in bad faith
September 20, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today for a fifth time on a contentious family dispute over the estate of deceased parents,
affirming a small claims court judgment in favor of two of the siblings for damages and fees against their brother and his
wife.
MoreChild must show she is born out of wedlock to inherit
August 27, 2010
Jennifer NelsonRuling on the issue for the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the plain language of Indiana Code Section
29-1-2-7 requires a child to show she is born out of wedlock for inheritance purposes.
MoreCOA concerned about some details in termination case
August 26, 2010
Jennifer NelsonIn affirming the involuntary termination of a mother’s parental rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals noted some troubling
details involving the case.
MoreJudges split in adopted trust-beneficiaries matter
August 13, 2010
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue of first impression regarding the retroactivity of a 2003 amendment to the state’s trust code, the Indiana
Court of Appeals was divided on whether adopted children should have been included as beneficiaries of a trust.
MoreBooking card exception to hearsay rule
June 30, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA booking card created by law enforcement in the course of a ministerial, nonevaluative booking process is not subject to
the police reports exclusion under Indiana Evidence Rule 803(8), the Indiana Court of Appeals decided today.
MoreCOA upholds stop of teen with gun
June 17, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals found the stop by police of a teen at a summer expo in Indianapolis who had a loaded gun in his
waistband didn’t violate the teen’s state or federal constitutional rights. The appellate court also concluded
the juvenile court’s comments to the teen’s father don’t require a remand.
MoreJudges: no private cause allowed for not reporting abuse, neglect
June 10, 2010
Michael HoskinsStanding behind a decision made by appellate judges about 20 years ago, the Indiana Court of Appeals has again declined to
interpret state statute in a way that allows for a private right of action for failing to report child abuse or neglect.
MoreCOA: No presumption of undue influence
January 19, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA 2005 amendment to Indiana Code sets aside the common law presumption of undue influence with respect to certain transactions
benefiting an attorney in fact, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today on an issue of first impression.
MoreJudges uphold contingent fees award
December 30, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe contingent fee contract a law firm entered into with a city regarding a sewer fee dispute, which ultimately led to the
firm collecting nearly 10 times more than the city anticipated, was valid and reasonable, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed
today.
MoreProsecutor misconduct leads to reversal
November 23, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a defendant's conviction of intimidation because several acts of misconduct constituted
fundamental error. The appellate court also ruled the man could be retried on the charge.
MoreJudges disagree as how to review sentence
November 18, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges affirmed today that a defendant's sentence following a guilty plea wasn't
inappropriate, but the judges didn't agree as to how to reach that conclusion.
MoreOfficer safety justified opening ajar car door
November 9, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe opening of an ajar car door by a police officer during a foot chase with a suspected robber didn't violate the man's
federal or state constitutional rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today.
MoreFirst impression in jury rule issue
September 2, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe participation of alternate jurors in discussions of evidence during recesses from trial, as allowed under Indiana Jury
Rule 20(a)(8), doesn't violate Indiana statute that prevents alternates from participating in deliberations. The Indiana
Court of Appeals ruled on the matter for the first time today.
MoreTrial court erred in denying motion to continue
August 17, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA Marion Superior trial court should have granted a woman's motion to continue the day of her bench trial because she
had a constitutional right to present a defense to support her involuntary intoxication argument, the Indiana Court of Appeals
decided today.
MoreJudges: Court should have questioned jurors
July 15, 2009
Jennifer NelsonJudges on the Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed as to whether a man's murder conviction should be overturned because
the trial court failed to investigate the impact of threats made against the jury. The majority determined the lack of action
by the trial court resulted in a fundamental error that required reversing the conviction, but that he could be retried.
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.
MoreCOA: Just running red light not reckless
May 13, 2009
Jennifer NelsonRuling on the issue for the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that not stopping at an intersection cannot, without
more evidence, constitute criminally reckless conduct and establish a prima facie case.
MoreCOA split on which statute of limitation applies
May 7, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals split today in its decision as to whether Indiana's two-year statute of limitations for personal
injury torts or the three-year statute of limitations under the Federal Employers' Liability Act applied in a man's
FELA claim in state court.
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.
More
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Lawyer who emailed nude film clip to harm ex-intern suspended 3 years
-
More than half of Conour’s inventoried assets gone, feds say
-
Indianapolis law firm Stewart & Irwin closing
-
Longest-practicing female attorney in Indiana has no plans to retire
-
Criminal code and expungement bills signed by governor
-
Lawyer who emailed nude film clip to harm ex-intern suspended 3 years
-
Indianapolis law firm Stewart & Irwin closing
-
More than half of Conour’s inventoried assets gone, feds say
-
SCOTUS rules against Indiana farmer in seed patent case
-
Social media sleuths find evidence, but admissibility requires authentication
Court Calendar
-
May 24, 2013 Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Judy Holcomb, Personal Representative of the Estate of Mable Louise Cochran, deceased - 5/24/13
-
May 28, 2013 The Estate of Richard A. Mayer and Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty, P.C., v. Lax, Inc., and David Lasco - 5/28/13
-
June 12, 2013 Northern Assurance Company of America v. Thomson, Inc., et al. - 6/12/13
-
June 18, 2013 State of Indiana v. Robert Owens - 6/18/13
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.