ILNews

Supreme Court grants 3 transfers

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer late last week to three cases to rule on issues of double recovery, evidence obtained through search warrants, and emotional distress.

The court granted transfer to Ronald Mayes v. Second Injury Fund, No. 93A02-0702-EX-162, in which Mayes appealed the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board's denial of his petition for compensation from the Second Injury Fund. Mayes argued his settlement with a third-party tortfeasor shouldn't bar his recovery as a matter of law. At issue in the appeal is Indiana Code Section 22-3-2-13, which prevents double recovery. The Court of Appeals affirmed the board's decision, finding Mayes failed to carry his burden to prove he was entitled to compensation from the fund, and even if he was, he failed to prove further compensation would not result in double recovery.

In Willie Eaton v. State, No. 89A04-0611-CR-641, the Court of Appeals reversed Eaton's convictions of dealing cocaine and possession of marijuana following a jury trial because the evidence obtained during a second warrant was gained by the state because of the unlawful search of Eaton's residence under the first warrant. The state's request for the first warrant did not set forth facts that constitute probable cause to search Eaton's home.

Finally, the court granted transfer by opinion in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. D.L.B., No. 89S05-0802-CV-102, and two other cases to decide the issue of emotional distress claims. The Supreme Court found D.L.B., a minor child, could not make a claim of emotional distress through State Farm because he was not directly involved in the accident he witnessed that killed his cousin. For more information on this case, read the Feb. 29 story from Indiana Lawyer Daily.
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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT