ILNews

Supreme Court grants 3 transfers

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer Thursday to three cases that involve amending charging information after the omnibus date, police questioning about drugs during a routine traffic stop, and consolidating a preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits without notice.

In Michael Hill v. State of Indiana, No.49A02-0701-CR-110, the appellate court affirmed the trial court didn't err by allowing the state to amend the charging information to add the attempted sexual misconduct with a minor charge after the omnibus date. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed Hill's conviction on the count and remanded for the trial court to vacate the conviction because the state didn't present sufficient evidence to convict Hill on the charge.

In State of Indiana v. Raymond L. Washington Jr., No. 02A03-0703-CR-124, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting Washington's motion to suppress marijuana seized from his pocket during a traffic stop. The Court of Appeals addressed the propriety of the common practice of police officers asking a person if he or she has any drugs during an otherwise routine traffic stop and decided that the police officer's question of whether Washington had any drugs on him was unreasonable under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

In John C. Roberts, M.D. v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc., No. 49A02-0701-CV-17, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's award of judgment in favor of Community Hospitals. The court determined Roberts was prejudiced by the consolidation of the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits without giving Roberts prior notice and remanded to the trial court to determine sufficiency of evidence to support the judgment in favor of Community Hospitals. Roberts had filed a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against Community Hospitals after he was terminated from a residency program for his history of unprofessional behavior.
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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT