Indiana Supreme Court Transfers

Justices take 2 sex offender registry appeals

September 8, 2015
Dave Stafford
The Indiana Supreme Court took two appeals last week challenging the application of the state’s Sex Offender Registry Act. The cases are among five transfers granted for the week ending Sept. 4.
More

Supreme Court rejects Think Tank trade secret appeal

August 17, 2015
IL Staff
A divided Indiana Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a northwest Indiana software company that unsuccessfully sued former employees it claimed divulged trade secrets to a competitor.
More

Justices take drug-buy sting appeal

July 21, 2015
Dave Stafford
The Indiana Supreme Court will review the conviction of a man arrested after authorities set up controlled cocaine purchases from him.
More

Supreme Court won't hear ex-Indiana elections chief appeal

July 17, 2015
 Associated Press
The Indiana Supreme Court has denied a request by former Secretary of State Charlie White that it review a state appeals court decision upholding his three felony convictions for voter fraud, theft and perjury.
More

Justices take fired principal, battery cases

June 23, 2015
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether an elementary school principal fired for having a consensual relationship with a teacher will be allowed to continue his breach of contract lawsuit. That case is one of two the justices accepted on transfer last week.
More

Bisard exhausts appeals as justices deny transfer

June 15, 2015
 Associated Press, IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court won’t hear an appeal from former Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer David Bisard, who was convicted of killing one motorcyclist and seriously injuring two others while driving drunk in his police cruiser.
More

Justices split, deny grandparent visitation appeal

June 8, 2015
Dave Stafford
Divided 3-2, the Indiana Supreme Court last week declined to hear the appeal of a grandparent stripped of visitation rights in a Court of Appeals ruling.
More

Justices to determine if ‘Spice law’ void for vagueness

May 19, 2015
Dave Stafford
The Indiana Supreme Court will determine whether Indiana’s “Spice law” banning synthetic drugs as new formulations appear is void for vagueness, as separate divided panels of the Court of Appeals ruled in January.
More

Justices decline to review $1.4M verdict against Walgreen

May 11, 2015
Dave Stafford
The Indiana Supreme Court will not review a $1.4 million jury award against Walgreen Co. in favor of a woman whose private prescription records were disclosed to a third party by a pharmacist.
More

Justices to review ruling for father of fatally injured moped rider

May 4, 2015
Dave Stafford
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear a case, stemming from a fatal crash, in which the trial court and Court of Appeals reached different results.
More

Divided court lets stand suppression of pat-down evidence

March 30, 2015
Dave Stafford
Three of Indiana’s five Supreme Court justices vacated transfer on a suppression-of-evidence case, letting stand a divided Court of Appeals ruling that a trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence obtained in a questionable pat-down search.
More

Justices take environmental contamination appeal

March 3, 2015
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court took just one case on transfer last week, a case involving a dispute over coverage for environmental contamination. The Court of Appeals ordered a trial on whether the known loss doctrine would bar insurance coverage, but later found that the “known claim” exclusion applies.
More

Justices vacate transfer in insurance dispute

February 11, 2015
IL Staff
A divided Indiana Supreme Court decided last week that it will no longer take an insurance case involving a landlord and tenant that also divided the Indiana Court of Appeals.
More

Justices add malpractice, adoption cases to docket

February 9, 2015
Dave Stafford
The Indiana Supreme Court will review summary judgment in favor of healthcare providers sued for medical malpractice in a stillbirth case as well as an adoption by a grandmother who claimed a 1997 conviction for neglect of a dependant should not automatically bar her from adopting the children.
More

Justices send post-conviction case back to COA for consideration

February 2, 2015
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court has vacated the dismissal of a Marion County post-conviction case and remanded it to the Court of Appeals. That was one of two cases justices took action on last week.
More

Justices to hear appeal of man convicted in son-in-law’s stabbing

January 12, 2015
Dave Stafford
The Indiana Supreme Court has added to its docket a case that split the Court of Appeals over whether allegedly inconsistent statements of a man stabbed by his father-in-law should have been admitted.
More

Justices grant transfer to insurance, will disputes

December 23, 2014
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear the insurance dispute involving a landlord and tenant that divided the Court of Appeals earlier this year.
More

On 3-2 vote, justices deny transfer in Camp Tecumseh case

December 15, 2014
Dave Stafford
Litigation over a proposed large-scale hog farm opposed by a neighboring YMCA camp in northern Indiana won’t be reviewed by the Indiana Supreme Court. Justices decided last week in a 3-2 decision to deny transfer on the issue of where the case should be heard.
More

Justices take molestation case that divided Court of Appeals

December 8, 2014
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer to a Marion County case that split the Court of Appeals as to whether the man’s Class A felony conviction for molesting his girlfriend’s daughter should be upheld.
More

Justices take trio of criminal cases

November 3, 2014
Dave Stafford
The Indiana Supreme Court added three criminal cases to its docket last week.
More

Justices order COA to reconsider dismissed termination appeals

October 27, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
In light of a September ruling in which the Indiana Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction to entertain a biological father’s appeal of an adoption, the justices granted transfer and ordered the Court of Appeals to reconsider two cases.
More

Indiana justices to hear school bus fees appeal

October 20, 2014
Dave Stafford
The Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether a public school district may charge parents a fee to transport children to and from school.
More

Justices vacate transfer in insurance policy lawsuit

October 8, 2014
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court decided Tuesday that the Court of Appeals decision regarding an insurance policy sold by Settlers Life Insurance Co. should stand, so it vacated transfer of a case it took in August.
More

Justices add criminal and child support cases to docket

October 6, 2014
Dave Stafford
Whether a person’s proximity to a crime scene together with circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction is the question for the Indiana Supreme Court in one of two cases justices will review.
More

Justices take 4th Amendment case

September 29, 2014
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court will decide a case that divided the Indiana Court of Appeals over whether marijuana and a pipe found after a traffic stop should be suppressed.
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