ILNews

Supreme Court denies 17 cases for transfer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Last week, the Indiana Supreme Court only took one case on transfer, which it ruled on Dec. 19. The justices declined to take 17 other cases.

In an opinion released the day the justices took the case, the high court reinstated John Kimbrough’s 80-year sentence for molesting his former girlfriend’s two young daughters in John Kimbrough, III v. State of Indiana, 45S04-1212-CR-687.

The justices declined to take Town of Zionsville, Indiana and Zionsville Plan Commission v. Hamilton County Airport Authority, 49A05-1107-PL-374, in which the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the town of Zionsville in a zoning dispute with the Hamilton County Airport Authority. Justice Steven David did not participate in the decision on this matter.

The justices were divided on whether to take the appeal of a man convicted of raping a fellow college student. Chief Justice Brent Dickson and Justice Loretta Rush voted to grant transfer to Jason Michael Palilonis v. State of Indiana, 42A05-1104-CR-197. Jason Michael Palilonis was convicted of Class B felony rape of student B.S. while both were at Vincennes University. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

A complete list of the petitions for transfer can be found on the court’s website.

 

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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT