ILNews

Supreme Court grants 3 transfers

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer this week to three cases, including a first impression case involving whether someone who has drugs within 1,000 feet of a youth program center run in a church can have their conviction enhanced.

In Walker Whatley v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0809-CR-808, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed Walker Whatley's Class A felony conviction of possession of cocaine, ruling he wasn't within 1,000 feet of a "youth program center" because the building is a church running mostly faith-based programs. The issue of felony enhancement for a violation of a "drug free zone" defined as a youth program center hadn't been the subject of an Indiana decision.

Whatley argued because the church doesn't bear an identifier to say it's a "youth program center," the statute provides no basis for people to know if they are within 1,000 feet of one.

Examining cases from other jurisdictions, the appellate court unanimously decided the church was and remains a church and isn't converted into a youth program center by reason of its faith-based activities for young people. The pastor of the church even testified that all of the services and events for children are essentially faith based.

In Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Jerry Jarrells, No. 29A02-0807-CV-669, the appellate judges couldn't agree on the application of a previous case involving the set-off of workers' compensation payments, which led to a split court and three separate opinions. The case involved Travelers Indemnity Co.'s attempt to recoup a portion of workers' compensation benefits following a jury trial.

Judges Carr Darden, Nancy Vaidik, and Patricia Riley disagreed as to the application of Pendleton v. Aguilar, 827 N.E.2d 614, 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), to the instant case. The majority - Judges Darden and Vaidik - found Travelers was entitled to summary judgment but for different reasons. The majority presumed the jury followed the trial court's instructions and applied the law contained within it; thus, Travelers is entitled to a statutory lien and or reimbursement, wrote Judge Darden. Judge Patricia Riley dissented, writing the majority attempts to distinguish Pendleton on the basis it involves an insurer seeking a pro rata reimbursement, but she believes Pendleton is on point for the situation in the instant case.

The majority remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Travelers and to determine the value of Travelers' lien and pro rata share for purposes of reimbursement.

In Foundations of East Chicago Inc., et al. v. City of East Chicago and State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0711-CV-987, the appellate court affirmed the trial court order dismissing Foundations of East Chicago's complaint challenging legislation that allowed the city of East Chicago to exercise its authority to select recipients of economic funding provided by a riverboat casino. The city has always had the authority to enact an ordinance to modify the arrangement between casino operators, organizations, and the city, regardless of Section 302 of the 2007 Budget Act. Judge Elaine Brown concurred in result with Chief Judge John Baker in the appeal; Melissa May dissented, for the same reasons as she did in City of East Chicago v. East Chicago Second Century, Inc., 878 N.E.2d 358, 365-68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

Foundations asked for transfer for the high court to decide whether the decision usurped the Gaming Commission's regulatory authority and the attorney general's power to investigate local development agreement issues on the commission's request; whether in holding East Chicago could "always" alter or terminate the agreement contravenes the Supreme Court's ruling in Zoeller v. East Chicago Second Century Inc., 904 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 2009); and whether other issues involving the 2007 Budget Act merit the high court's review in resolving an overall controversy in which it has granted transfer in two related cases, one awaiting a decision. Foundations also questions whether the ruling in the instant case interferes with the high court's exclusive transfer jurisdiction and prior decisions that judgments are res judicata pending appeal until reversed.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  2. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  3. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  4. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  5. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

ADVERTISEMENT