ILNews

Supreme Court will hear 5 arguments this week

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A mobile home demolished more than a year ago is the subject of one of several oral arguments the Indiana Supreme Court will hear this week.

Justices will hear three cases Tuesday, and two more are scheduled for Thursday, but the court has granted transfer in only two of those cases so far.

The mobile home-related argument tomorrow is in Ernestine Waldon v. Donna Wilkins, 18A04-0604-CV-199, which comes out of Delaware County. After deciding a mobile home was unfit to live in, the county health department initiated proceedings against the owners, Waldon and Virgie Small, and ultimately had the home demolished. The Circuit Court denied the owners' motions to set aside a default judgment and for an order requiring the return of the trailer. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion Dec. 29. The justices have not yet accepted jurisdiction.

A second case for which the court will consider transfer is Glen Strohmier v. Vivian Strohmier, 24A01-0606-CV-245. The Franklin Circuit Court granted the former wife's Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment and modified its earlier division of property, but the appellate court in October reversed and held that the former husband's bankruptcy did not provide grounds for relief under that trial rule.

So far, the only case to be heard Tuesday that the Supreme Court has granted transfer in is a criminal case from Grant Superior Court: Thabit Gault v. State, 27S02-0705-CR-181. Gault was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. The Court of Appeals affirmed and decided Gault was not entitled to review a police report because the officer was not an "adverse party" for purposes of Evidence Rule 612(a).

Two arguments are set before the Indiana Supreme Court Thursday, as well. The first argument, Sandra Brinkman v. Anne Bueter, 29S02-0704-CV-141, is a medical malpractice case involving complications associated with pregnancy. A divided Court of Appeals reversed on statute of limitations claims, holding the patient couldn't have reasonably discovered her claims until after consulting another obstetrician. The court has granted transfer in this case.

The second case is State v. Melissa Rucker, 15A01-0608-CR-337, which involves police obtaining a search warrant for Rucker's premises and not filing a supporting affidavit until two weeks later. The Dearborn Superior Court granted her motion to suppress evidence obtained on the grounds based on the delayed filing, and the appellate judges affirmed in February. The court will consider transfer.
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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT