ILNews

Supreme Court grants 6 transfers

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted six transfers Sept. 11, including a case of first impression involving a suit filed by a pathological gambler against a riverboat casino.

In Caesars Riverboat Casino LLC v. Genevieve M. Kephart, No. 31A01-0711-CV-530, a split Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that casinos don't have a common law duty to protect compulsive gamblers from themselves, and aren't required to refrain from trying to entice those people into their establishments. The majority decided Genevieve Kephart couldn't recover from a private negligence action against the riverboat casino; she argued the casino enticed her with a free hotel room, drinks, and meals, and took advantage of her condition as a pathological gambler.

Judge Terry Crone dissented because he believed common law duty should be imposed because of the casino's conduct in luring her to the casino with freebies and it should have excluded her from its marketing materials because it likely knew of her condition.

In Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Gary Patrick, No. 49A02-0807-CV-614, the Court of Appeals examined previous caselaw to clarify claims for emotional distress brought as part of the Wrongful Death Statute or part of the Medical Malpractice Act. The Indiana Patient's Compensation fund had appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of Gary Patrick in his independent claim for emotional distress damages in conjunction with the Adult Wrongful Death Statute following the death of his adult son.

The appellate court ruled Patrick's assertion for damages as a bystander was pursuant to Groves v. Taylor, 729 N.E.2d 569 (Ind. 2000), and because he dealt with the aftermath of the malpractice, he was able to bring an independent claim for damages for emotional distress in conjunction with his claim under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute.

In Ford Motor Co. and TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. v. Sally Moore, personal representative of the estate of Daniel A. Moore, No. 73A05-0710-CV-552, the majority of Court of Appeals' judges reversed a jury verdict in favor of Sally Moore in the estate's product negligence claim because it ruled the estate didn't present sufficient evidence to establish its claim.

Judge Patricia Riley dissented because she thought the estate presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could have concluded a safer and feasible alternative to the conventional seatbelt was available that would have cost-effectively improved aggregate safety in all types of crashes.

Sally Moore brought the suit following the death of Daniel Moore in which he was ejected from his Ford Explorer after his car blew a tire, even though he was wearing a properly fastened seatbelt made by TRW.

In Gabino Gonzalez v. State of Indiana, No. 82A01-0809-CR-406, the Court of Appeals reversed Gabino Gonzalez's criminal mischief and operating while intoxicated convictions and remanded for a new trial because the court ruled a letter he wrote while trying to negotiate a plea agreement shouldn't have been admitted at trial. The appellate court determined the letter was a privileged communication that should not have been admitted based on Indiana Code Section 35-35-3-4 and Ind. Evidence Rule 410.

In Kevin S. Varner v. Indiana Parole Board, No. 45A04-0812-CR-693, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of Kevin Varner's pro se action for mandate requiring the Indiana Parole Board to determine his eligibility based on a vote of all five board members. Only four of the five board members voted on whether Varner should be granted parole and the vote resulted in a tie. The trial court dismissed his action believing it had no jurisdiction over the parole board.

Under the prescreening statutes, the appellate court ruled based on previous caselaw that his mandate action states a claim upon which relief can be granted. His action is based on a clear, statutory requirement and his relief can be granted by having the full, five-member board vote on his eligibility for parole. The Court of Appeals issued a mandate that all five members cast their vote on Varner's parole eligibility.

In Stephan M. Gallagher v. State of Indiana, No. 15A04-0806-CR-326, the Court of Appeals reversed Stephan Gallagher's felony conviction of dealing in a schedule II substance and remanded for re-sentencing as a Class B felony. The appellate court ordered the reduced sentence because no children were present at 3 a.m., and as a matter of law, the drug transaction that was within 1,000 feet of a school was brief. The state also failed to rebut Gallagher's defense. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the admittance as evidence an audio recording of the drug transaction.

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. If real money was spent on this study, what a shame. And if some air-head professor tries to use this to advance a career, pity the poor student. I am approaching a time that i (and others around me) should be vigilant. I don't think I'm anywhere near there yet, but seeing the subject I was looking forward to something I might use to look for some benchmarks. When finally finding my way to the hidden questionnaire all I could say to myself was...what a joke. Those are open and obvious signs of any impaired lawyer (or non-lawyer, for that matter), And if one needs a checklist to discern those tell-tale signs of impairment at any age, one shouldn't be practicing law. Another reason I don't regret dropping my ABA membership some number of years ago.

  2. The case should have been spiked. Give the kid a break. He can serve and maybe die for Uncle Sam and can't have a drink? Wow. And they won't even let him defend himself. What a gross lack of prosecutorial oversight and judgment. WOW

  3. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  4. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  5. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

ADVERTISEMENT