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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT