ILNews

Supreme Court grants 3 transfers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted three transfers yesterday in cases involving a resisting law enforcement conviction, denial of benefits from Indiana's Second Injury Fund, and the reversal of a jury award filed by a college student cleared of rape.

In Bryan G. Mosley v. State, No. 49A02-0802-CR-188, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Bryan Mosley's conviction of resisting law enforcement, finding sufficient evidence to support it. The appellate court had some concerns regarding the brief filed by Mosley's public defender and considered the brief "perfunctory" and "baseless."

In James A. Kohlmeyer v. Second Injury Fund, No. 93A02-0711-EX-1000, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board's denial of James Kohlmeyer's petition for payments of benefits from the Second Injury Fund. At issue in the appeal was whether Social Security disability benefits count toward the threshold amount of benefits that have to be received to become eligible for benefits from the fund. The appellate court ruled the threshold requirement regarding benefits received as set out in Indiana Code must be met by only considering workers' compensation benefits.

In Susana Henri v. Stephen Curto, No. 49A02-0709-CV-777, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of Stephen Curto. The lower court found he didn't rape Susana Henri and awarded him $45,000 on his counterclaim. An appellate court majority found the trial court engaged in ex parte communication with the jury, and the presumption of error from that communication hasn't been rebutted. As a result, the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Henri's motion to correct error. Chief Judge John Baker dissented, calling the majority's decision to reverse the jury verdict award a "radical act."

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. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT