Oral arguments

60 teachers to get Supreme Court education

August 26, 2016
IL Staff
Sixty teachers from schools in 35 Indiana counties will take part next week in a court education and history program sponsored by the Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Historical Society. Judges and lawyers nominated the educators earlier this year.
More

$25M verdict poses tough questions for COA

August 10, 2016
Marilyn Odendahl
Hearing arguments about a case that resulted in what may be among the largest awards for loss of consortium, the Indiana Court of Appeals repeatedly questioned what amount of damages is too much and when a jury’s decision should be overturned.
More

7th Circuit sets arguments in Exodus vs. Pence Syrian refugee case

July 27, 2016
Dave Stafford
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence’s appeal of a ruling blocking his bid to suspend resettlement of Syrian war refugees in the state will be heard by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals less than two months before voters decide if he will be the nation’s next vice president.
More

COA hears arguments in $25M wrongful death verdict

July 27, 2016
Marilyn Odendahl
In a wrongful death case argued before the Indiana Court of Appeals Tuesday, the panel considered the questions of when are damages too high and when should an appellate court set aside a jury’s verdict?
More

Caseworker vs. DCS

July 27, 2016
Dave Stafford
Despite a caseworker’s lawsuit against the Indiana Department of Child Services, her employer says she’s right: There aren’t enough caseworkers to handle the exploding growth in cases of Indiana children and families in crisis. But that’s where the agreement ends.
More

Lake Michigan property line dispute arguments set

July 25, 2016
Dave Stafford
A dispute over whether the public has a right to walk the beach along Lake Michigan or private property extends to the water’s edge will be heard by the Indiana Court of Appeals Sept. 5.
More

DCS agrees more caseworkers needed, argues against suit

July 20, 2016
Indiana’s Legislature and governor have failed to provide resources to ensure sufficient case managers to protect children and families, a lawyer representing the Department of Child Services told the Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday. But she argued a caseworker’s lawsuit against the agency was the wrong way to enforce state law requiring those workers have no more than 17 cases each.
More

Supreme Court hears arguments in threat case

June 30, 2016
Scott Roberts
The Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday morning on whether to grant transfer in a case on the question of whether an arrestee's statement could be considered a true threat because there is no evidence that the officer felt threatened by it.
More

Are old convictions still relevant?

June 29, 2016
Dave Stafford
A man who admitted fault and negligence for a Lake County drunken-driving crash is appealing damages of $2 million awarded in the case, claiming the jury was wrongly provided evidence of his prior alcohol-related driving convictions that were 17 and 30 years old.
More

Can records of civil forfeitures be expunged?

June 15, 2016
Marilyn Odendahl
The Indiana Supreme Court is considering whether files on property judgments "relate to the person’s felony conviction."
More

COA questions evidence in Patel feticide conviction

June 1, 2016
Scott Roberts
The Indiana Court of Appeals recently heard arguments in a case that could impact any pregnant woman whose actions result in the death of her unborn child.
More

Justices weigh duty of care for house party hosts

May 4, 2016
Dave Stafford
Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David posed a graphic hypothetical to an attorney defending a liability suit against a homeowner who hosted a party where a guest died after a fight. David’s scenario encapsulated the justices’ apparent concern over a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in the homeowner’s favor.
More

Dickson hears final argument in historic Corydon courthouse

April 20, 2016
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court’s five justices traveled to Corydon Wednesday to hear arguments in a modern case presented in the original Supreme Court courtroom built for just three justices. The event was part of the celebration of the state’s bicentennial and also was Justice Brent Dickson’s final oral argument.
More

DNA result shielded from rape trial jury

April 20, 2016
Dave Stafford
A man convicted of rape wasn’t permitted at his trial to introduce DNA evidence collected from the victim when she sought medical attention. The DNA was from another man who also was at the party attended by several other people who testified the crime took place.
More

Justices seem divided over Obama immigration actions

April 18, 2016
 Associated Press
The U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided between its liberal and conservative justices Monday over President Barack Obama's immigration programs that could affect millions of people who are in the country illegally.
More

Conour victims ask 7th Circuit for fees awarded to creditor

April 14, 2016
Dave Stafford
Judges on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals appeared sympathetic to victims of former attorney William Conour during oral arguments Wednesday over legal fees that a District Court judge ordered paid to a Conour creditor rather than to defrauded clients who were shut out of the case.
More

Dickson saluted after final Statehouse argument

April 7, 2016
Dave Stafford
Retiring Indiana Supreme Court Justice Brent Dickson heard his final argument at the Statehouse courtroom Thursday, where his fellow justices and those arguing and attending saluted him with a standing ovation.
More

Indiana Supreme Court hears lawmaker email case

March 17, 2016
 Associated Press
Lawyers for an open government group told the Indiana Supreme Court that lawmakers should be required to comply with the state's public records act.
More

Dickson’s final argument set for historic Corydon courtroom

March 9, 2016
IL Staff
In an event celebrating the state’s bicentennial, the Indiana Supreme Court announced Wednesday it will travel to Corydon on April 20 for an oral argument in the original Supreme Court Courtroom.
More

Court taking up whether lawmakers can keep emails private

March 8, 2016
 Associated Press
The Indiana Supreme Court will consider whether a state lawmaker’s emails and other correspondence with utility company officials about proposed legislation can be kept private.
More

Abortion case appears to split depleted Supreme Court

March 2, 2016
 Associated Press
The Supreme Court of the United States appeared sharply divided Wednesday over Texas abortion clinic regulations in its biggest abortion case in nearly a quarter-century.
More

ESPN makes appeal for Notre Dame police records

February 24, 2016
Dave Stafford
ESPN Inc. argued public policy, legislative intent and precedent in Indiana and other states favor a Court of Appeals order for University of Notre Dame police to release records of incidents involving student athletes.
More

Rush: Dickson’s last argument to be where Supreme Court began

January 13, 2016
Dave Stafford
Chief Justice Loretta Rush announced Wednesday in her State of the Judiciary address that the court will hear a case in the historic southern Indiana building at a date to be determined in April. The case will be the final matter Dickson hears before his retirement on April 29.
More

Appeals court hears injured worker's bid for lost earnings

January 7, 2016
 Associated Press
An attorney for a Mexican man who's seeking lost future earnings for a workplace back injury told the Indiana Court of Appeals on Wednesday that his client should be allowed to pursue those wages at U.S. pay rates instead of rates in his home country.
More

Justices to hear arguments over Indy OTB smoking

December 18, 2015
Dave Stafford
The Indiana Supreme Court has scheduled arguments next month that could determine whether an Indianapolis off-track betting parlor may continue to allow smoking that’s otherwise banned in Marion County bars, restaurants and public places.
More
Page  << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> pager
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT