Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
In Re Szilagyi
Indiana Supreme Court · 2012-06-29
The case concerned the consequences of a 60-day suspension from the practice of law imposed on Robert C. Szilagyi, the elected Prosecuting Attorney of LaPorte County, effective August 1, 2012. The court appointed Robert D. Neary, the chief deputy prosecutor, to serve as full-time temporary prosecuting attorney for the duration of the suspension and ordered that Szilagyi’s compensation as prosecutor be discontinued during that period. The court reasoned that the duties of a county prosecutor require active membership in the Indiana bar, so a suspension from practice automatically disqualifies the officeholder and creates a vacancy that must be filled to maintain the orderly administration of justice.
criminal lawprocedure
In Re Conour
Indiana Supreme Court · 2012-06-29 · cited 1×
This case concerns a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney, initiated by a verified complaint filed in May 2012. The Indiana Supreme Court accepted the respondent's resignation from the bar, effective immediately, and directed that it be recorded on the Roll of Attorneys. All pending disciplinary proceedings were dismissed as moot due to the resignation, though allegations could be revisited if a reinstatement petition is later filed. The respondent is ineligible to seek reinstatement for five years, and any such petition would require clear and convincing evidence of remorse, rehabilitation, and fitness to practice under the court's admission and discipline rules.
criminal law
Sharp v. State
Indiana Supreme Court · 2012-06-26 · cited 32×
The case involved Michael Sharp's convictions for two counts of child molesting after he repeatedly molested his stepson over a period of about a year. Following a jury trial, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 40 years for the class A felony and 6 years for the class C felony, designated Sharp as a sexually violent predator and credit restricted felon, and imposed lifetime parole. On appeal, Sharp challenged his convictions on double jeopardy grounds and sought review of his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), arguing that his credit restricted felon status should be factored into the review. The Indiana Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals on the double jeopardy and aggravating/mitigating circumstances issues, held that credit restricted felon status may be considered in appellate sentence review as a penal consequence, but concluded that the sentence was not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and the defendant's character.
criminal law
Fletcher v. State
Indiana Supreme Court · 2012-06-12 · cited 2×
The case concerned Corey Fletcher, who was convicted of methamphetamine conspiracy and habitual offender status after a trial held more than 70 days following his pro se speedy trial motion under Indiana Criminal Rule 4. The trial court had disregarded the motion because Fletcher was represented by appointed counsel at the time it was filed. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the motion should have been honored. Upon review, the Indiana Supreme Court initially granted transfer but later vacated that order as improvidently granted and denied transfer, thereby reinstating the Court of Appeals opinion as precedent without further analysis on the merits.
criminal lawprocedure
Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Garwood
Indiana Supreme Court · 2012-05-15 · cited 2×
The case involved a tax dispute between the Indiana Department of State Revenue and Garwood that had been decided by the Indiana Tax Court. The Indiana Supreme Court initially granted a petition to review those Tax Court decisions but, after additional review and oral argument, concluded that the grant of review had been improvidently issued. The court therefore vacated its prior order granting review and denied the Department’s petition for review. This action ended the litigation between the parties in the Supreme Court pursuant to the applicable appellate rules.
taxesprocedure
Perdue v. Gargano
Indiana Supreme Court · 2012-03-22 · cited 40×
The case involved a class action lawsuit against Indiana's Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) challenging its automated processing of applications for Medicaid, Food Stamps, and TANF benefits. Plaintiffs alleged that denial notices violated due process by lacking sufficient explanations, that denials based on applicants' 'failure to cooperate' contravened federal Food Stamp law, and that one individual plaintiff was denied reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Indiana Supreme Court held that the notices were constitutionally inadequate because they did not adequately explain adverse eligibility determinations, but ruled that federal law permits denials for failure to cooperate and that the individual plaintiff was entitled only to reasonable accommodations without mandating specific services like a caseworker. The court based these conclusions on interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment, federal statutes and regulations governing the benefit programs, and ADA requirements for meaningful access.
civil rightshealthcarefederal power