First impression

Parties can't pick certain provisions to enforce

December 29, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals addressed an issue of first impression today regarding whether a person could seek to enforce rights under a vehicle purchasing agreement he didn't sign but then disavow other provisions set forth in the same document.
More

Appellate court rules on GAL feesRestricted Content

December 23, 2008
Michael HoskinsMore

COA: Warrant didn't need to be admitted

December 22, 2008
Rebecca Berfanger
In a case of first impression involving whether an active arrest warrant must be admitted into evidence when the defendant has not challenged the warrant's validity, the Court of Appeals has affirmed an appellant-defendant's conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana that an officer discovered during a routine traffic stop.
More

Judges disagree on trust jurisdiction issue

December 11, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
In a matter of first impression, Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed whether an Indiana probate court had subject matter and personal jurisdiction over a trust based in Virginia.
More

Court tackles 2 first-impression issues

December 9, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled on a case today in which there were two issues of first impression, finding consolidation of a trial with a preliminary injunction hearing without notice isn't a reversible error unless a showing of prejudice can be made.
More

No partial parental right termination allowed

October 31, 2008
Michael Hoskins
Indiana law doesn't allow for partial termination of parental rights, the state's Court of Appeals has ruled in a case of first impression.
More

Economic presence meets taxing requirement

October 21, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
In a matter of first impression, the Indiana Tax Court has ruled that a bank didn't need to have a physical presence in the state to be subject to Indiana's Financial Institutions Tax.
More

Special judge invalidates local impact fee

October 21, 2008
Michael Hoskins
In the first court decision of its kind in Indiana, a special judge has invalidated Zionsville's parks impact fee because it violates state statute.
More

Transfer granted in write-offs case

October 1, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer yesterday to a case of first impression involving write-offs and insurance benefits.
More

Transfer granted to school financing case

September 29, 2008
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer last week to a case of first impression involving the courts' authority to review the state's school financing formula.
More

Decomposition cleanup subject to lien law

September 22, 2008
Michael Hoskins
A decomposing body left in a Johnson County home has led the Indiana Court of Appeals to analyze the state mechanic's lien statute.
More

COA: Gun test-firing not an unlawful search

September 19, 2008
Michael Hoskins
Routine test-firing of handguns that police have in their custody isn't a violation of a person's Fourth Amendment rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
More

Court: Evidence shows car was a gift

September 18, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
In a case of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that a husband gave his wife a car as a gift, despite registering the title in both his name and his wife's name.
More

7th Circuit won't rehear in vitro caseRestricted Content

August 22, 2008
Michael Hoskins
The full 7th Circuit Court of Appeals won't rehear a case of first impression involving an Indiana woman's claim that she was wrongfully fired for taking time off for in vitro fertilization, and attorneys haven't decided whether to seek further review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
More

Adult son could file paternity, support petition

August 21, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
A retroactive child support action brought by an adult child presented an issue of first impression for the Indiana Court of Appeals, which ruled the adult child could bring the action, but his mother would be the proper recipient of the retroactive payments.
More

7th Circuit rules on multiplicitous convictionsRestricted Content

November 21, 2007
Jennifer Nelson
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals encountered for the first time the issue of whether a single incident of firearm possession can support multiple convictions under United States Code when the defendant is included in more than one class of people who are disqualified under the statute from possessing firearms.
More
Page  << 1 2 3 4 5 6 pager
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT