ILNews

Supreme Court accepts 2 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The justices of the Indiana Supreme Court have granted transfer to a case involving a Batson challenge and another involving early retirement benefits.

In Jerrme Cartwright v. State of Indiana, No. 82S01-1109-CR-564, Jerrme Cartwright, who faced charges stemming from a fight at an American Legion in Evansville, challenged the removal of the only African-American from the jury. The majority on the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed his convictions because based on the record, they couldn’t determine which one of the state’s proffered explanations the trial court relied on to deny Cartwright’s Batson challenge.

Judge Nancy Vaidik dissented, believing the appellate court should give more deference to the trial court’s decision, and the state’s justifications for striking the juror were supported by the record.

In C.G. LLC v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, No. 93S02-1109-EX-565, the Court of Appeals was divided on whether early retirees could continue to receive unemployment assistance. The review board determined that all employees – those who’d been on indefinite layoff when joining the early retirement program and those who were on temporary layoff or were actively working at the time – could receive benefits. The majority reversed, deciding that the workers didn’t have good cause to voluntarily leave their employment because there weren’t specific threats or plans of future plant closing or layoffs.

The employees who left due to risk of possible future changes at the company, but not due to direct threat of layoff weren’t entitled to benefits, the majority held. Judge James Kirsch dissented, believing that decision goes against legislative directive and ignores what many face in this economy.

The justices denied transfer to 23 other cases for the week ending Sept. 16.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT