Indiana Supreme Court

Justices uphold driver's license suspension

February 3, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court has affirmed the suspension of a man’s driver’s license following his conviction of possessing marijuana. While the driver’s license suspension statute generally applies only when the defendant uses the vehicle in the commission of the offense, it’s not required that the defendant must either own or be driving the vehicle when he commits the offense.
More

Man loses challenge to denial of admission to Indiana bar

February 2, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
A Kansas attorney who was denied admission to join the Indiana bar can’t bring his suit against various state actors in federal court because of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.
More

Giving fee guidance

February 1, 2012
Michael Hoskins
Indiana Supreme Court decisions on fee structures lack bright-line rules and have caused questions about practicality.
More

COA affirms voyeurism charge for would-be prosecutor; Supreme Court issues suspension

January 31, 2012
Jenny Montgomery
The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed a voyeurism charge for William R. Wallace, a former candidate for Gibson County prosecutor. Wallace, who videotaped himself and a woman engaged in sexual intercourse, had filed an interlocutory appeal, claiming that he was innocent of Class D felony voyeurism because the sex was consensual.
More

Indiana Supreme Court takes 4 cases

January 31, 2012
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer in four cases for the week ending Jan. 27 and denied transfer in 11 others.
More

AG's office says disputes over legislative rules should not be decided in court

January 30, 2012
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear the state's appeal in the lawsuit over collecting fines imposed on absent members of the Legislature. The state's highest court on Friday ruled 4-1 to accept jurisdiction of the interlocutory appeal sought by the Indiana attorney general's office, which represents the state and officials named as defendants in the legislative fines lawsuit, Crawford v. Berry.
More

15 apply to be Supreme Court justice

January 27, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
Fifteen people have applied to be the next Indiana Supreme Court justice, the high court announced Friday. They are vying to replace Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, who will leave the bench March 4.
More

Webcasting allowed in 3 Lake County courtrooms

January 27, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court has announced a new 18-month pilot project allowing trial court proceedings to be webcast in three Lake County courtrooms.
More

Supreme Court takes 2 cases

January 24, 2012
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to two cases last week, in which they issued decisions, and denied transfer to eight other cases.
More

Justices adopt repayment plan in UPL case

January 23, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court has adopted a repayment plan for an Indianapolis company it found engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, ordering officials to reimburse the state bar association and former clients during the next six years.
More

Justices: patient fund not entitled to set-off

January 20, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court has affirmed a $1 million excess damages award from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund to the estate of a man who died following a truck accident, determining the fund is not entitled to a reduction of the award to account for the 20 percent chance the man would have died even without the doctor’s negligence.
More

Supreme Court upholds unemployment benefits for Chrysler workers

January 19, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court has affirmed the decision by the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development granting unemployment benefits to Chrysler workers who took voluntary buyouts.
More

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

Indiana chief justice delivers final address

January 18, 2012
Michael Hoskins
Shepard says state courts are no longer 'Lone Rangers.'
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

Order requires United Financial to pay court costs

January 17, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court has ordered United Financial Systems Corp. and its officials to pay the court and a special master $16,003 for the costs associated with an Unauthorized Practice of Law action that has been ongoing for more than three years.
 
More

Legislation inspired by Barnes ruling passes Senate committee

January 17, 2012
Jenny Montgomery
A Senate committee voted unanimously to pass a bill that would allow a person to resist the unlawful entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer under certain conditions.
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

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

Chief Justice Shepard gives final State of the Judiciary

January 12, 2012
Michael Hoskins
Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard gave his final State of the Judiciary on Wednesday, recapping not only the past 12 months, but also highlighting court initiatives and changes that have occurred during the quarter century he spent as chief justice.
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

AG asks justices to take secretary of state case

January 11, 2012
IL Staff
The Office of the Indiana Attorney General has asked the Indiana Supreme Court to take the Indiana Recount Commission’s appeal of the finding that Secretary of State Charlie White was ineligible to be on the November 2010 ballot.
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

Chief justice to give his final State of the Judiciary

January 10, 2012
Michael Hoskins
Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard on Wednesday will give his annual State of the Judiciary address to a joint session of the Indiana General Assembly, the final time he will do so before retiring in March.
More
Page  << 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 >> pager
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT