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 The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion Dec. 29.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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT