ILNews

Supreme Court takes 3 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer to three cases, dismissed one and declined 16 cases for the week ending Oct. 21.

In John R. Berry IV v. State of Indiana, No.49A04-1008-CR-536, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed John Berry’s conviction of Class A felony attempted murder and remanded with instructions to find Berry not guilty by reason of insanity and for further proceedings as required by the Indiana Code. The appellate court looked at whether a person’s mental disease brought on by years of drinking could support an insanity defense. The judges concluded Berry’s psychosis was a mental defect under the law.

In Michael J. Lock v. State of Indiana, No. 35A04-1010-CR-641, Michael Lock appealed his conviction of Class D felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are suspended. He contended the state failed to prove his 2009 Yamaha Zuma was a motor vehicle, and the appellate court agreed, reversing his conviction. The COA was split in reversing Lock’s conviction, with Judge John Baker dissenting.

The justices also accepted Otha S. Hamilton v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-1110-CR-621 and released an opinion on the case Oct. 19.

The justices voted 3-2 to dismiss Warren L. Williams, et al. v. David Orentlicher, et al., No. 49A02-1003-PL-249, in which the COA had held that the trial court properly denied Warren Williams’ and David Frankel’s motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court ruled that the two former leaders in the Indiana State Teachers Association – who served as trustees for a legally separate insurance trust – can’t force the trust’s governing board to adhere to arbitration clauses outlined in their ISTA employment contracts. Judge James Kirsch dissented because he believed Williams’ and Frankel’s respective ISTA responsibilities were an integral foundation for what they did as ex officio members for the trust.

Justices Frank Sullivan and Robert Rucker voted to deny petition to transfer, rather than dismiss.
 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT