ILNews

Supreme Court grants 3 transfers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted three transfers Thursday to cases involving what manner an appellate court could reverse a revocation of probation, how to calculate guardian ad litem fees, and whether there is a rebuttable presumption that children ages 7 through 14 can't be found contributorily negligent.

At issue in Cornelius Cooper v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0709-CR-780, is whether Cornelius Cooper's probation should have been revoked and by what manner the appellate court was authorized to reverse a revocation. A majority believed Cooper was denied due process as a fundamental error, allowing the appellate court to review his untimely appeal of the revocation order. Judge Nancy Vaidik, in her concurring result in a separate opinion, believed Cooper's appeal should have been reviewed under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 2. Judge Vaidik also noted in her opinion the disagreement in the Court of Appeals on whether a probation revocation order is appealable under Post-Conviction Rule 2, but she believed that right existed.

In the issue of first impression in the case In re: The paternity of N.L.P., No. 45A03-0805-JV-226, the appellate court ruled on guardian ad litem fees and ruled a GAL must differentiate between attorney and non-legal work when billing in a paternity case. The trial court in the case reduced court-appointed GAL Jill Swope's fees from $34,800 to $20,000 but didn't explain why it chose to reduce the fees to $20,000. The Court of Appeals remanded for further analysis of the fees based on the appellate opinion, which instructed trial courts to consider guidelines set out in Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.5 when deciding how to compensate for fees and expenses.

In Clay City Consolidated School Corp. v. Ronna Timberman and John Pipes II, No. 11A04-0802-CV-96, the Court of Appeals found a trial court committed reversible error in a suit against a school for the death of a student when it instructed a jury that Indiana law has a rebuttable presumption that children ages 7 through 14 can't be found contributorily negligent. Timberman and Pipes sued the school corporation after their 13-year-old son died during a basketball practice. He had fainted two days earlier during practice but hadn't seen a doctor before his next practice. His death was attributed to ventricular fibrillation. His parents sued under Indiana's Child Wrongful Death Statute and won $300,000 following an order on remittitur from the court reducing the damages.

Noting that the trial court "reopened the proverbial can of worms" with this issue, the appellate court examined Indiana caselaw to conclude that state law doesn't conclusively contain a presumption either in favor or against 7- to 14-year-olds with respect to whether they can be found liable for negligent acts. The trial court misstated Indiana law when it informed the jury that state law contains a rebuttable presumption that children between the ages of 7 and 14 can't be found contributorily negligent. The Court of Appeals remanded for a new trial.

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT