Supreme Court grants 2 transfers

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to two cases today, including a highly litigated case regarding negligence claims and the construction and renovation of an expanded library location in downtown Indianapolis.

In The Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library v. Charlier Clark & Linard, P.C., and Thornton Tomasetti Engineers, No. 06A05-0804-CV-239, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the engineering and construction companies, ruling the economic-loss doctrine bars the library's negligence claims against the companies.

The library filed suit against the companies as a result of delays and defects in the construction of the central library in Indianapolis.

Judge Elaine Brown dissented because she believed there is a question of fact regarding imminent danger as to Thorton Tomasetti Engineers and that summary judgment under the economic-loss doctrine was inappropriate.

In Reynaldo A. Griffin v. State of Indiana, No. 71A03-0805-CR-260, the appellate court ruled a defendant charged with possessing drugs within 1,000 feet of a school only has the burden of placing the issue of statutory defense in question where the state's evidence hasn't done so. The Court of Appeals split in affirming Reynaldo Griffin's possession conviction based on whether he was briefly within 1,000 feet of the school. The majority ruled he wasn't in front of the school briefly and upheld his conviction. Judge Ezra Friedlander dissented because he believed there was no indication that if he hadn't been stopped, Griffin would have been within 1,000 feet of the school any longer than it took him to walk by it. Judge Friedlander would reduce the Class D felony conviction and remand for re-sentencing.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?