ILNews

Supreme Court grants 2 transfers

Jennifer Nelson
December 9, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to two cases, one in which the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a high school student's convictions of battery and disorderly conduct after an altercation with school officials.

In Christopher Bailey v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0801-CR-65, Christopher Bailey's convictions stem from an incident involving the assistant principal and dean of students. After the assistant principal told him to pull up his pants, Bailey bumped into her arm and then threw down his drink and coat, balled his fists, and cursed at the dean.

The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the state didn't prove Bailey conducted battery because it didn't show that he committed "knowing" battery when he walked into the assistant principal's arm. The appellate court reversed his disorderly conduct conviction because Bailey's behavior wasn't considered "tumultuous conduct" that would result in serious bodily injury or substantial property damage.

The high court also granted transfer to In re: The marriage of Robert Rovai v. Ann Marie Rovai, No. 45A03-0712-CV-600, in which the Court of Appeals found the dissolution court didn't err in failing to award post-judgment interest dating from the entry of the decree of a monetary award to Robert Rovai from Ann Marie Rovai. The appellate court wrote in a footnote that it recognized its analysis of caselaw on the topic "reflects a difficulty, if not an inability, to completely reconcile the various holdings." The appellate court also affirmed the court's decision of conditioning payment of the monetary judgment to Robert on any of three occurrences - that both children become emancipated, Ann Marie voluntarily sells the marital home awarded to her, or she marries or lives with someone else in the home. The trial court also didn't err in apportioning federal and state tax refunds for three years according to the respective income of the parties for the particular year.

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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT