Supreme Court accepts 4 cases

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer in four cases.

Justices heard arguments Tuesday morning in Philip Littler v. State, 71A03-0510-CR-509, and granted transfer later that day. The case is a murder conviction appeal involving whether the trial court abused discretion in excluding certain testimony from the victim ;s mother, properly allowed the state to add a murder charge after the omnibus date, and whether sufficient evidence was provided to support the charge. The Court of Appeals had affirmed the lower court ;s rulings in a memorandum opinion in December.

In Idan Filip v. Carrie Block, No. 75A05-0601-CV-10, the Court of Appeals in December issued a decision reversing and remanding a case involving a couple ;s insurance policy at issue in a 2003 fire loss. The lower appellate court had determined the negligence action was brought within a two-year statute of limitations and that an issue of material fact existed as to how much the couple relied on insurance agent Carrie Block ;s advice in procuring the insurance coverage, and her subsequent failure to notify them the acquired coverage was inadequate.

A third case transferred is Linda Keesling v. Frederick Beegle, 18A04-0501-CV-10, which the Court of Appeals in December affirmed and reversed in part. The case involves fraud, theft, conversion, racketeering, and securities claims relating to the selling of telephone systems, including payphones.

The justices also granted transfer in Michael Robertson v. State of Indiana , 49A05-0512-CR-731, which comes from a January Court of Appeals decision stemming from a felony theft case. The appellate court affirmed that evidence was sufficient for the conviction, but that the enhanced and consecutive sentence was incorrect and instructed the court to revise the sentence from two years to the advisory 1 ½ years.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit