First impression
Prior conviction doesn't fall under exception
November 5, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a defendant's argument that his felon-in-possession indictment was insufficient
because his previous conviction of stealing cable doesn't meet the definition of a "crime punishable by imprisonment
for a term exceeding one year" under 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(20)(A).
MoreInsurance presents first-impression issue
October 30, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals determined today for the first time that post-retirement health insurance premiums paid by a
former employer aren't a marital asset subject to a division.
MoreFarming dispute creates first impression issue
October 16, 2009
Michael HoskinsIn a ruling from the Indiana Supreme Court on an issue of first impression, two of the state's five justices fear a new
holding will have far-reaching impact not only on the forfeiture cases at issue, but also mortgage foreclosure cases impacting
the commercial and industrial real estate world.
MoreFirst impression in utility fee case
October 7, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn a matter of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to determine whether the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
properly reviewed the rates and fees charged by a regional sewage district at the request of a campground owner.
MoreCourt rules on LLC matter of first impression
September 10, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide for the first time whether a company owes a continuing fiduciary duty to a former
shareholder or member to accurately report the company's fiscal results to the IRS for a year in which the former member
held stock or was still a member of the limited liability company.
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.
MoreSupreme Court grants 3 transfers
August 21, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer this week to three cases, including a first impression case involving whether someone
who has drugs within 1,000 feet of a youth program center run in a church can have their conviction enhanced.
MoreFax confirmation creates issue of fact
August 20, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals addressed for the first time in a ruling today the evidentiary significance of a fax confirmation
generated by the sender's machine. The Circuit Court determined the fax confirmation is strong evidence of receipt, so
the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of a company in an employment-discrimination case.
MoreApartment creates issue of first impression
July 27, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue of first impression, the Indiana Tax Court decided housing owned by a non-profit that receives governmental subsidies
to rent to low- and moderate-income people at below-market rates is not property used for a charitable purpose.
MoreCOA: Dog sniff requires reasonable suspicion
July 14, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAnalyzing the issue for the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals today determined reasonable suspicion is needed to conduct
a drug-detecting dog sniff of a private residence. Even though the state didn't argue the police had reasonable suspicion,
it established the officers relied on the warrant executed after the sniff in good faith.
MoreCOA: Rentals not restricted by covenants
July 9, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn a case of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals determined today the rental of cabins in a subdivision was allowed
under its restrictive covenants because the rental property was for "residential use."
MoreFirst impression for habitual offender statute
July 7, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide whether a defendant's prior conviction for
conspiracy to deal in cocaine qualified as a conviction for dealing in cocaine under the state's habitual offender statute.
MoreCourt: daylight saving time not an issue
July 1, 2009
Michael HoskinsA trial judge shouldn't have suppressed a drunk-driving breath test on grounds that a time change interfered with the
prosecution, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today on an issue of first impression.
MoreFirst impression on residential entry issue
June 15, 2009
Jennifer NelsonSince a man who had permission to be in his ex-girlfriend's garage did not have permission to be in her house, he committed
residential entry as a Class D felony when he kicked in her locked kitchen door to use the phone.
MoreJustices dismiss public school funding case
June 2, 2009
Michael HoskinsEven if Indiana's public school system falls short of where it should be in providing quality education, courts aren't
constitutionally able to set standards or establish a financing formula because that's a task falling solely to the General
Assembly.
MoreCOA: Church not a 'youth program center'
May 21, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a man's Class A felony conviction of possession of cocaine, finding he wasn't
within 1,000 feet of a "youth program center" because the building is a church running mostly faith-based programs.
It's an issue of first impression for Indiana courts.
MoreWorker's entire service decides FMLA eligibility
May 19, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue of first impression, the majority of Indiana Supreme Court justices ruled an employee filling multiple positions
with the same employer is eligible for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act if the employee's total service is sufficient
to qualify, even if the service in either position alone doesn't qualify.
MoreJustices rule on uninsured motorist statute
May 14, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue of first impression, the Indiana Supreme Court had to decide whether an insurance company's uninsured motorist
policy - which requires the bodily injury be sustained by an insured - violates the state's uninsured motorist statute
and is unenforceable.
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 upholds workplace restraining order
April 28, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals today analyzed for the first time the legal parameters required to affirm an order issued to
protect a person under the Workplace Violence Restraining Order Act. The appellate court turned to the Indiana Civil Protection
Order Act to provide context for analyzing cases under the WVROA.
MoreCOA rules in negligent application process case
April 21, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAddressing an issue today for the first time in state courts, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to determine whether a couple
could sue their insurance broker for alleged negligence during the application process.
MoreCOA decides eminent domain case
April 14, 2009
Michael HoskinsIn considering a common arrangement between a utility company and property developer, the Indiana Court of Appeals has given
a green light for that utility to exercise eminent domain when a developer is financing a sewer line extension to a proposed
housing development.
MoreText messages must be separately authenticated
March 31, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn a matter of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals determined text messages are subject to separate authentication
before being admitted into evidence, much like the authentication process that data saved in a computer must undergo before
being admitted.
MoreFirst impression in 'non-suspension' rule case
March 31, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals determined in a case of first impression that the state's 'non-suspension rule' in
Indiana Code depends on the status of the prior criminal conviction at the time of sentencing for a subsequent conviction.
MoreTemporary and lessee worker same under act
March 25, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn what appears to be the first time the Indiana Court of Appeals has been presented with a joint employer argument in the
context of Indiana Code Section 22-3-6-1(a), the Worker's Compensation Act, the appellate court determined that "temporary
employee" and "leased employee" are not mutually exclusive terms and are interchangeable.
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 22, 2013 Floyd Weddle v. State of Indiana - 5/22/13
-
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
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.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.