Indiana Law Review


An Examination of the
Indiana Supreme Court Docket,
Dispositions, and Voting in 1997*

Kevin W. Betz"
Barry L. Loftus***

In 1 997, the fully modem Indiana Supreme Court emerged to show that it
could handle the crush ofmandatory criminal cases. The court not only disposed
of its increased criminal docket, but it also resumed its docket of discretionary
cases after a drop in 1996/ A major reason for the court's ability to handle the
increased influx of criminal cases was the newest member of the court, Justice
Boehm, who served his first full calender year. He emerged as the most
productive member ofthe court in 1997, which is noteworthy in and of itself, but
it was especially significant because he replaced Justice DeBruler, who was the
least productive^ member of the court during his more than three decades as a
member of the court. In short, the court was at its most productive since the
beginning ofthis study in 1991. The court is also showing no signs of letting up;

* The Tables presented in this Article are patterned after the annual statistics of the U.S.
Supreme Court published in the HarvardLaw Review. An explanation of the origin ofthese Tables
can be found at Louis Henkin, The Supreme Court, 1967 Term, 82 Harv. L. Rev. 63, 301 (1968).
The Harvard Law Review granted permission for the use of these Tables by the Indiana Law
Review this year; however, permission for any further reproduction of these Tables must be
obtained from the Harvard Law Review.

We thank Krieg DeVault Alexander & Capehart for its gracious willingness to devote the time,
energy, and resources of its law firm to allow a project such as this to be accomplished. As is
appropriate, credit for the idea for this project goes to Chief Justice Shepard; but, of course, any

errors or omissions belong to his former law clerk. We also thank WESTLAW® for its kind
willingness to allow us free access to its computer resources and assistance in preparing these

Tables. In addition, we thank Amanda Linthicum for her clerical work and support.
** Attorney at Law, representing professional employees and practicing in the appellate

area. Former Chief Counsel and Deputy Commissioner, Indiana Department of Environmental

Management, 1995-97. Associate, Krieg DeVault Alexander & Capehart, Indianapolis, 1990-95.
Law clerk for Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, Indiana Supreme Court, 1988-90. B.A., 1982,
Indiana University; M.S., 1984, Northwestern University; J.D., 1988, Indiana University School

of Law—Bloomington.
*** J.D. Candidate, 1998, Indiana University School of Law—Indianapolis; B.A., 1985,

Marquette University.

1.

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

2. This comment only applies to numbers of opinions and certainly in no way implies

anything about the quality of those opinions.

MANDATORY DISCRETIONARY TOTAL
109(53%) 98 (47%) 207

64(41%) 93 (59%) 157

60 (44%) 77 (56%) 137

60 (45%) 73 (55%) 133

46 (38%) 76 (62%) 122

68 (59%) 48(41%) 116

100(58%) 71(42%) 171



458 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 31:457

it has increased its discretionary docket, even though the court's mandatory
criminal caseload shows no signs of lessening.

The court's mandatory criminal caseload has gone from 46 to 68 to 100
opinions in the last three years. The court's discretionary caseload has gone from
76 to 48 to 71 opinions in the last three years. The court seems to be fighting
back to maintain its position as a court of last resort until another constitutional

amendment is passed.^
As to specific types of cases, the most significant highlight is that the court's

disposition of death-penalty opinions doubled from any previous year to 1

8

opinions. This is a potential indication that prosecutors in this State have been

increasingly seeking the death penalty. Nine of the 1 8 were reviewed on
petitions for post-conviction relief, and the other half were direct appeals from

the trial court. In three of the death penalty cases, the court rendered decisions

that in some way fell short of full affirmance of the lower court."* The other 15
were fiilly affirmed. The court also doubled its number of opinions involving a
substantive discussion of Indiana constitutional issues. It issued 24 such
opinions.

The following is a description of the highlights from each table.

Table A. In 1997, the supreme court issued 171 opinions that were authored by
an individual justice. Over each of the past five years, beginning in 1992, the
court issued 157, 137, 133, 122, and 116 opinions. Thus, the court has reversed

its trend of decreasing its number of annual opinions. Ofthe 171 opinions issued
by individual justices in 1997, 125 opinions analyzed criminal issues and 46
analyzed civil matters.

As stated above. Justice Boehm who just joined the court last year was the
most productive member with 43 opinions, 32 criminal and 1 1 civil. Chief
Justice Shepard and Justice Dickson were next with 36 total opinions each.

Justice Sullivan produced 31, and Justice Selby authored 24 opinions.

Justices Dickson and Sullivan wrote the most dissents with 12 each. Justice

Sullivan had the most concurrences with 1 1

.

Table B-1. For civil cases. Justices Boehm and Selby were the most aligned at
95.1%. Chief Justice Shepard and Justice Selby were next at 93.5%. Justices

Boehm and Sullivan were the least aligned at 71.1%. Overall, Chief Justice
Shepard was the most aligned with Justice Boehm close behind. Justice Sullivan

3. The court fought this battle against an overwhelming number of mandatory criminal

cases in 1988. The court is fighting the battle again. See Kevin W. Betz & Andrew T. Deibert, An
Examination ofthe Indiana Supreme Court Docket, Dispositions, and Voting in 1996, 30 IND. L.

Rev. 933 (1997); see also Randall T. Shepard, Changing the ConstitutionalJurisdiction ofthe

Indiana Supreme Court: Letting a Court ofLast Resort Act Like One, 63 iND. L.J. 669 (1988);

Randall T. Shepard, Foreword: Indiana Law, the Supreme Court, and a New Decade, 24 iND. L.
Rev. 499(1991).

4. State V. Van Cleave, 681 N.E.2d 181 (Ind. 1997); Games v. State, 684 N.E.2d 466 (Ind.

1997); Thompson v. State, 690 N.E.2d 224 (Ind. 1997).



1 998] INDIANA SUPREME COURT 459

was the least aligned with all of his fellow justices.

Table B-2. For criminal cases, Justice Boehm and Chief Justice Shepard were
the most aligned at 96.8%. Justices Dickson and Sullivan were the least aligned
at 85.6%.

Table B-3. For all cases, Chief Justice Shepard and Justice Boehm, along with
Justices Selby and Boehm, were the most aligned, each pair at 95.8%. Justices
Dickson and Sullivan were the least aligned at 82.1%.

Table C. With the continuing increase of less-divisive mandatory cases, the
court again reached an even higher level of unanimity. The court was either
unanimous or unanimous with a concurrence in 87.8% of its opinions. This is the
highest level of unanimity in the seven years of this study.

Table D. The court had six 3-2 decisions, the lowest number since the annual
survey began. Of those, no block of three justices is apparent. In fact, none of
the six split opinions included the same three justices. In addition. Chief Justice
Shepard, Justices Dickson and Selby, who had in previous years collaborated
more than any other three-justice majority, did not form any three-justice
majority in 1997.

Table E-1. Interestingly, the court reversed 10% more direct criminal appeals,
even though the number of such appeals jumped 47% from 68 to 100 on the
court's docket.

Table E-2. As discussed earlier, the court increased its number of civil petitions
accepted for transfer from 32 to 45, even though its docket of mandatory criminal

cases has increased from 68 to 100. There were 368 civil petitions to transfer
and 379 criminal petitions to transfer, equaling a total of 747. This is an overall
drop of 60 petitions to transfer from last year.

Table F. As also discussed earlier, the most interesting highlight from this
specific subject area Table is that the court disposed of 18 death-penalty

opinions. Ofthose 18, nine were direct appeals and nine were petitions for post-
conviction relief This number of death-penalty opinions is twice as many as any
previous number and triple the usual number. It is likely that this is the most
death-penalty opinions produced in the history of the court. This could indicate

that prosecutors in this State are exercising this prerogative with greater

frequency. The court also had a two-fold jump in opinions that substantively
discussed an Indiana constitutional law issue. This is a continuation of this

court's commitment to developing this State's organic law. In addition, the court
wrote four opinions on issues involving railroad rights ofway and two significant
opinions regarding high school athletics.



460 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 31:457

TABLE A
Opinions"

OPINIONS OF COURT* CONCURRENCES'= DISSENTS'*

Criminal Civil Total Criminal Civil Total Criminal Civil Total

Shepard, C.J. 29 7 36 2 3 5 4 4

Dickson, J. 25 11 36 1 1 2 4 8 12

Sullivan, J. 20 11 31 7 4 11 6 6 12

Selby, J.' 19 5 24 2 2 1 1 2

Boehm, J." 32 11 43 3 3 1 2 3

Per Curiam 37 37

Total 125 82 207 15 8 23 12 21 33

" These are opinions and votes on opinions by each justice and in per curiam in the 1997 term. The

Indiana Supreme Court is unique because it is the only supreme court to assign each case to a justice by a

consensus method. Cases are distributed by a consensus of the justices in the majority on each case either by

volunteering or nominating writers. The chiefjustice does not have any power to control the assignments other

than as a member of the majority. See Melinda Gann Hall, Opinion Assignment Procedures and Conference

Practices in State Supreme Courts, 73 JUDICATURE 209 (1990). The order of discussion and voting is started

by the most junior member of the court and follows reverse seniority. See id. at 210.

^ This is only a counting of full opinions written by each justice. Plurality opinions that announce

the judgment of the court are counted as opinions of the court. It includes opinions on civil, criminal, and

original actions. Also, the following eight miscellaneous cases are not included in the table: Burris v. State,

684 N.E.2d 193 (Ind. 1997) (order setting execution date); Burris v. State, 687 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. 1997) (denial

of successive petition for post conviction relief); Taylor v. State, 677 N.E.2d 38 (Ind. 1997) (order directing

clerk to certify appeal as final and remanding case to trial court); In re Ellis, 685 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 1997)

(dissent from denial oftransfer); Indiana Dep't of State Revenue v. Associated Ins. Cos., 685 N.E.2d 51 (Ind.

1998) (dissent from denial of transfer); United Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Blossom Chevrolet, Inc., 679

N.E.2d 1327 (Ind. 1997) (dissent from denial of transfer); Mortell v. Mutual Sec. Life Ins. Co., 678 N.E.2d 797

(Ind. 1997) (order dismissing appeal); Harden v. Whipker, 676 N.E.2d 19 (Ind. 1997) (order dismissing appeal

as moot).

" This category includes both written concurrences and votes to concur in result only.

'' This category includes both written dissents and votes to dissent without opinion. Opinions

concurring in part and dissenting in part or opinions concurring in part only and differing on another issue are

counted as dissents.

•-

Justices declined to participate in the following non-disciplinary cases: Justice Sullivan (State v.

Hoovler, 673 N.E.2d 767 (Ind. 1997); Sullivan v. Day, 681 N.E.2d 713 Gnd. 1997); J.A.W. v. State, 687 N.E.2d

1202 (Ind. 1997); Family & Social Servs. Admin, v. Community Care Ctrs., Inc., 688 N.E.2d 1250 (Ind. 1997));
Justice Selby (Stavropoulos v. State, 678 N.E.2d 397 (Ind. 1997); Como, Inc. v. Carson Square, Inc., 689

N.E.2d 725 (Ind. 1997)); Justice Boehm (Calumet Nat. Bank v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 682 N.E.2d 785 (Ind.

1997); Consolidated Rail Corp., Inc. v. Lewellen, 682 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. 1997); Malachowski v. Bank One,

Indianapolis, 682 N.E.2d 530 (Ind. 1997); Tazian v. Cline, 686 N.E.2d 95 (Ind. 1997); Bloemker v. Detroit

Diesel Corp., 687 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. 1997)).



1 998] INDIANA SUPREME COURT 46

1

TABLE B-1
Voting Alignments for Civil Cases'

NOT Including Judicial or Attorney Discipline Cases

Shepard Dickson Sullivan Selby Boehm

O 38 32 43 38

Shepard,

C.J.

S

D 38
1

33 43

1

39

N 47 43 46 42
P 80.9% 76.7% 93.5% 92.9%

38 30 40 34

Dickson,

J.

S

D 38
1

31 40 34

N 47 43 46 42
P 80.9% 72.1% 87.0% 81.0%

32 30 33 27

Sullivan,

J.

S

D
1

33

1

31 33 27

N 43 43 42 38
P 76.7% 72.1% 78.6% 71.1%

O 43 40 33 39

Selby,
s

D 43 40 33 39
J. N 46 46 42 41

P 93.5% 87.0% 78.6% 95.1%

38 34 27 39

S 1

Boehm, D 39 34 27 39 —
J. N 42 42 38 41

P 92.9% 81.0% 71.1% 95.1%

^ This Table records the number of times that one justice voted with another in full-opinion

decisions, including per curiam, for only civil cases. For example, in the top set of numbers for Chief Justice

Shepard, 38 is the number oftimes ChiefJustice Shepard and Justice Dickson agreed in a full majority opinion

in a civil case. Two justices are considered to have agreed whenever they joined the same opinion, as indicated

by either the reporter or the explicit statement of ajustice in the body of his or her own opinion. The Table does

not treat two justices as having agreed if they did not join the same opinion, even if they agreed only in the

result of the case or wrote separate opinions revealing little philosophical disagreement.

"O" represents the number of decisions in which the two justices agreed in opinions of the court

or opinions announcing the judgment of the court.

"S" represents the number of decisions in which the two justices agreed in separate opinions,

including agreements in both concurrences and dissents.

"D" represents the number of decisions in which the two justices agreed in either a majority,

dissenting, or concurring opinion.

"N" represents the number of decisions in which both justices participated and thus the number

of opportunities for agreement.

"P" represents the percentage of decisions in which one justice agreed with another justice,

calculated by dividing "D" by "N."



462 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 3 1 :457

TABLE B-2
Voting Alignments for Criminal Cases

NOT Including Judicial or Attorney Discipline Cases«

Shepard Dickson Sullivan Selby Boehm

O 118 110 119 121

Shepard,

C.J.

S

D 118 110 119 121
N 125 125 124 125
P 94.4% 88.0% 96.0% 96.8%

O 118 107 116 118

Dickson,

J.

S

D 118 _— 107 116
2

120

N 125 125 124 125
P 94.4% 85.6% 93.5% 96.0%

110 107 110 110

Sullivan,

J.

S

D 110 107
1

111 110

N 125 125 124 125
P 88.0% 85.6% 89.5% 88.0%

119 116 110 119

Selby,
s

D 119 116
1

111 119
J. N 124 124 124 124

P 96.0% 93.5% 89.5% 96.0%

O 121 118 110 119
s 2

Boehm, D 121 120 110 119 —
J. N 125 125 125 124

P 96.8% 96.0% 88.0% 96.0%

^ This Table records the number of times that one justice voted with another in full-opinion

decisions, including per curiam, for only criminal cases. For example, in the top set of numbers for Chief

Justice Shepard, 1 18 is the number oftimes ChiefJustice Shepard and Justice Dickson agreed in a full majority

opinion in a criminal case. Two justices are considered to have agreed whenever they joined the same opinion,

as indicated by either the reporter or the explicit statement of a justice in the body of his or her own opinion.

The Table does not treat two justices as having agreed if they did not join the same opinion, even if they agreed

only in the result of the case or wrote separate opinions revealing little philosophical disagreement.

"O" represents the number of decisions in which the two justices agreed in opinions of the court

or opinions announcing the judgment of the court.

"S" represents the number of decisions in which the two justices agreed in separate opinions,

including agreements in both concurrences and dissents.

"D" represents the number of decisions in which the two justices agreed in either a majority,

dissenting, or concurring opinion.

"N" represents the number of decisions in which both justices participated and thus the number

of opportunities for agreement.

"P" represents the percentage of decisions in which one justice agreed with another justice,

calculated by dividing "D" by "N."



1998] INDIANA SUPREME COURT 463

TABLE B-3
Voting Alignments for All Cases

NOT Including Judicial or Attorney Discipline Cases'"

Shepard Dickson Sullivan Selby Boehm

O 156 142 162 159

Shepard,

C.J.

s

D 156
1

143 162

1

160

N 172 168 170 167
P 90.7% 85.1% 95.3% 95.8%

156 137 156 152

Dickson,

J.

S

D 156
1

138 156

2

154

N 172 168 170 167
P 90.7% 82.1% 91.8% 92.2%

142 137 143 137

Sullivan,

J.

s

D
1

143

1

138

1

144 137

N 168 168 166 163
P 85.1% 82.1% 86.7% 84.0%

O 162 156 143 158

Selby,
S

D 162 • 156
1

144 158
J. N 170 170 166 165

P 95.3% 91.8% 86.7% 95.8%

O 159 152 137 158
S 1 2

Boehm, D 160 154 137 158 —
J. N 167 167 163 165

P 95.8% 92.2% 84.0% 95.8%

^ This Table records the number of times that one justice voted with another in full-opinion

decisions, including per curiam, for all cases. For example, in the top set of numbers for Chief Justice Shepard,

156 is the total number of times ChiefJustice Shepard and Justice Dickson agreed in all full majority opinions

written by the court in 1997. Two justices are considered to have agreed whenever they joined the same

opinion, as indicated by either the reporter or the explicit statement of a justice in the body of his or her own

opinion. The Table does not treat two justices as having agreed if they did not join the same opinion, even if

they agreed only in the result ofthe case or wrote separate opinions revealing little philosophical disagreement.

"O" represents the number of decisions in which the two justices agreed in opinions of the court

or opinions announcing the judgment of the court.

"S" represents the number of decisions in which the two justices agreed in separate opinions,

including agreements in both concurrences and dissents.

"D" represents the number of decisions in which the two justices agreed in either a majority,

dissenting, or concurring opinion.

"N" represents the number of decisions in which both justices participated and thus the number

of opportunities for agreement.

"P" represents the percentage of decisions in which one justice agreed with another justice,

calculated by dividing "D" by "N."



464 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 3 1 :457

TABLE C

Unanimity

NOT Including Judicial or Attorney Discipline Cases'

Unanimous Opinions

Unanimous^ With Concurrence'' With Dissent Total

Criminal Civil Total Criminal Civil Total Criminal Civil Total

102 32 134(77.9%) 13 4 17(9.9%) 10 11 21(12.2%) 172

' This Table tracks the number and percent of unanimous opinions among all opinions written. If,

for example, only four justices participate and all concur, it is still considered unanimous. It also tracks the

percent of overall opinions with concurrence and overall opinions with dissent.

J A decision is considered unanimous only when all justices participating in the case voted to concur

in the court's opinion as well as its judgment. When one or more justices concurred in the result but not in the

opinion, the case is not considered unanimous.

^ A decision is listed in this column if one or more justices concurred in the result but not in the

opinion of the court or wrote a concurrence, and there were no dissents.



1 998] INDIANA SUPREME COURT 465

TABLED

3-2 Decisions'

Justices Constituting the Majority Number of Opinions'"

1

.

Shepard, C.J., Dickson, J., Boehm, J.

2. Dickson, J., Selby, J., Boehm, J.

3. Shepard, C.J., Sullivan, J., Selby, J.

4. Dickson, J., Sullivan, J., Selby, J.

5. Shepard, C.J., Dickson, J., Boehm, J.

6. Shepard, C.J., Selby, J., Boehm, J.

Total"

' This Table concerns only decisions rendered by full opinion. An opinion is counted as a 3-2

decision if two justices voted to decide the case in a manner different from that of the majority of the court.

'" This column lists the number of times each three-justice group constituted the majority in a 3-2

decision.

" The 1997 term's 3-2 decisions were:

1. Shepard, C. J., Sullivan, J., Boehm, J.: In re Kehoe, 678 N.E.2d 394 (Ind. 1997) (per curiam).

2. Dickson, J., Selby, J., Boehm, J.: McGraw-Edison Co. v. North-Eastem Rural Elec. Membership

Corp., 678 N.E.2d 1 120 (Ind. 1997) (Boehm, J.).

3. Shepard, C. J., Sullivan, J., Selby, J.: Bacher v. State, 687 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. 1997) (Sullivan, J.).

4. Dickson, J., Sullivan, J., Selby, J.: West Clark Community Sch. v. H.L.K., 690 N.E.2d 238 (Ind.

1997) (Sullivan, J.).

5. Shepard, C.J., Dickson, J., Boehm, J.: Berry v. State, 689 N.E.2d 444 (Ind. 1997) (Dickson, J).

6. Shepard, C.J., Selby, J., Boehm, J.: National City Bank v. Shortridge, 689 N.E.2d 1248 (Ind. 1997)

(Shepard, C.J.).



466 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 31:457

TABLE E-1

Disposition of Cases Reviewed by Transfer
AND Direct Appeals"

Reversed or Vacated ^ Affirmed Total

Civil Appeals Accepted for Transfer

Direct Civil Appeals

Criminal Appeals Accepted for Transfer

Direct Criminal Appeals

37(78.7%)

21 (87.5%)

29 (29.0%)

10(21.3%)

3 (12.5%)

71 (71.0%)

87 (50.9%) 84(49.1%)

47

24

100

Total ni'^

" Direct criminal appeals are cases in which the trial court imposed a sentence of greater than 50

years. See IND. CONST, art. VII, § 4. Thus, direct criminal appeals are those directly from the trial court. A

civil appeal may also be direct from the trial court. See iND. APP. R. 4(A) and also pursuant to Rules of

Procedure for Original Actions. All other Indiana Supreme Court opinions are accepted for transfer from the

Indiana Court of Appeals. See iND. APP. R. 1 1(B). The court's transfer docket, especially civil cases, has

substantially increased in the past five years, but declined significantly last year. See Chief Justice Randall T.

Shepard, Indiana Law, the Supreme Court, and a New Decade, 24 iND. L. REV. 499 (1991).
'' Generally, the term "vacate" is used by the Indiana Supreme Court when it is reviewing a court of

appeals opinion, and the term "reverse" is used when the court overrules a trial court decision. A point to

consider in reviewing this Table is that the court technically "vacates" every court of appeals opinion that is

accepted for transfer, but may only disagree with a small portion ofthe reasoning and still agree with the result.

See iND. App. R. 1 1(B)(3). As a practical matter, "reverse" or "vacate" simply represents any action by the

court that does not affirm the trial court or court of appeals opinion.

^ This does not include 60 attorney and judicial discipline opinions; one writ of mandamus or

prohibition; four opinions related to certified questions; nor six miscellaneous cases. These opinions did not

reverse, vacate, or affirm any other court's decision.



1998] INDIANA SUPREME COURT 467

TABLE E-2

Disposition of Petitions to Transfer
TO Supreme Court in 1996'

Denied or Dismissed Granted Total

Petitions to Transfer

Civir 323(87.8%) 45(12.2%) 368

Criminar 352(92.9%) 27(7.1%) 379

Juvenile

Total 675(90.4%) 72(9.6%) 747

' This Table analyzes the disposition of petitions to transfer by the court. See Ind. App. R. 1 1(B).

This Table is compiled from information provided by the Indiana Supreme Court in a report entitled, "Grant

and Denial of Cases in Which Transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court Has Been Sought."

' This also includes petitions to transfer in tax cases and worker's compensation cases.

' This also includes petitions to transfer in post-conviction relief cases.



468 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 3 1 :457

TABLE F
Subject Areas of Selected Dispositions

WITH Full Opinions"

Original Actions Number
• Certified Questions

• Writs of Mandamus or Prohibition V
• Attorney and Judicial Discipline 59"^

• Judicial Discipline 2"

Criminal

• Death Penalty 18"

• Fourth Amendment or Search and Seizure lO''

• Writ of Habeas Corpus

Emergency Appeals to the Supreme Court

Trusts, Estates, or Probate 4*"

Real Estate or Real Property 6'"''

Personal Property 1"

Landlord-Tenant

Divorce or Child Support
Idd

Children in Need of Services (CHINS) jee

Paternity 2^

Product Liability or Strict Liability 3^^

Negligence or Personal Injury 8"*

Invasion of Privacy 1"

Medical Malpractice 3^

Indiana Tort Claims Act

Statute of Limitations or Statute of Repose 2*^

Tax, Department of State Revenue, or State Board of Tax Commissioners 1

"

Contracts 8™"

Corporate Law or the Indiana Business Corporation Law 1™

Uniform Commercial Code

Banking Law

Employment Law 1 oo

Insurance Law 6PP

Environmental Law jqq

Consumer Law \"

Workers Compensation
ps

Arbitration 1"

Administrative Law 6""

First Amendment, Open Door Law, or Public Records Law

Full Faith and Credit
1 w

Eleventh Amendment
1 WW

Civil Rights 1
XX

Indiana Constitution 24yy

" This Table is designed to provide a general idea ofthe specific subject areas upon which the court

ruled or discussed and how many times it did so in 1997. It is also a quick-reference guide to court rulings



1998] INDIANA SUPREME COURT 469

for practitioners in specific areas of the law. The numbers corresponding to the areas of law reflect the number

of cases in which the court substantively discussed legal issues about these subject areas. A citation list is
provided in a footnote for each area.

'' In re Madison County Probation Officers' Salaries, 682 N.E.2d 498 (Ind. 1997).

"^ In re Anonymous, 689 N.E.2d 442 (Ind. 1997); In re Comstock, 675 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. 1997); In

re Clifford, 674 N.E.2d 972 (Ind. 1997); In re Putsey, 675 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. 1997); In re Manson, 676 N.E.2d

347 (Ind. 1997); In re Reynolds, 676 N.E.2d 20 (Ind. 1997); In re Cartmel, 676 N.E.2d 1047 (Ind. 1997); In

re Newell, 677 N.E.2d 38 (Ind. 1997); In re Tracy, 676 N.E.2d 738 (Ind. 1997); In re Miller, 677 N.E.2d 505

(Ind. 1997); In re Smith, 678 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. 1997); In re Raikos, 678 N.E.2d 381 (Ind. 1997); In re Kehoe,

678 N.E.2d 394 (Ind. 1997); In re Lansky, 678 N.E.2d 1 1 14 (Ind. 1997); In re Miller, 678 N.E.2d 1117 (Ind.

1997); In re Cawley, 678 N.E.2d 1 1 12 (Ind. 1997); In re Roche, 678 N.E.2d 797 (Ind. 1997); In re Schreiber,

681 N.E.2d 687 (Ind. 1997); In re Gemmer, 679 N.E.2d 1313 (Ind. 1997); In re Felling, 679 N.E.2d 498 (Ind.

1997); In re Levy, 682 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. 1997); In re Marshall, 680 N.E.2d 1098 (Ind. 1997); In re Capufi, 676

N.E.2d 1058 (Ind. 1997); In re Miller, 681 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. 1997); In re Fleener, 682 N.E.2d 521 (Ind. 1997);

In re Shaeffer, 681 N.E.2d 1113 (Ind. 1997); In re Mittower, 681 N.E.2d 1113 (Ind. 1997); In re Jackson, 682

N.E.2d 526 (Ind. 1997); In re Thonert, 682 N.E.2d 522 (Ind. 1997); In re Baars 683 N.E.2d 555 (Ind. 1997);

In re Lusfina, 683 N.E.2d 236 (Ind. 1997); In re Callahan, 684 N.E.2d 191 (Ind. 1997); In re Stivers, 683

N.E.2d 1312 (Ind. 1997); In re Toth, 684 N.E.2d 493 (Ind. 1997); In re Kight, 685 N.E.2d 472 (Ind. 1997);

In re Fihe, 685 N.E.2d 469 (Ind. 1997); In re Knobel 685 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. 1997); In re Fisher 684 N.E.2d 197

(Ind. 1997); In re O'Brien 685 N.E.2d 54 (Ind. 1997); In re Redding, 685 N.E.2d 56 (Ind. 1997); In re Thonert,

685 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. 1997); In re Headlee 685 N.E.2d 1075 (Ind. 1997); In re Conn, 686 N.E.2d 109 (Ind.

1997); In re Higginson, 685 N.E.2d 1074 (Ind. 1997); In re Razo, 686 N.E.2d 108 (Ind. 1997); In re Manns,

685 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. 1997); In re Baldwin, 685 N.E.2d 1069 (Ind. 1997); In re Darling, 685 N.E.2d 1066

(Ind. 1997); In re Lamb, 686 N.E.2d 1 13 (Ind. 1997); In re Miller, 687 N.E.2d 186 (Ind. 1997); In re Miller,

687 N.E.2d 191 (Ind. 1997); In re O'Connell 687 N.E.2d 573 (Ind. 1997); In re Deloney, 689 N.E.2d 481 (Ind.

1997); In re Anonymous, 689 N.E.2d 434 (Ind. 1997); In re Lewis 680 N.E.2d 858 (Ind. 1997); In re Christoff,

690 N.E.2d 1135 (Ind. 1997); In re Lehman, 690 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. 1997); In re Peteet, 679 N.E.2d 137 (Ind.

1997); In re Tew, 681 N.E.2d 689 (Ind. 1997).

" In re Haan, 676 N.E.2d 740 (Ind. 1997); In re Cox, 680 N.E.2d 528 (Ind. 1997).

" State V. Moore, 678 N.E.2d 1258 (Ind. 1997); State v. Van Cleave, 681 N.E.2d 181 (Ind. 1997);

Games v. State, 684 N.E.2d 466 (Ind. 1997); Burris v. State, 684 N.E.2d 193 (Ind. 1997); Saylor v. State, 686

N.E.2d 80 (Ind. 1997); Allen v. State, 686 N.E.2d 760 (Ind. 1997); Smith v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind.

1997); Prowell v. State, 687 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1997); Matheney v. State, 688 N.E.2d 883 (Ind. 1997); Bieghler

V. State, 690 N.E.2d 188 (Ind. 1997); Thompson v. State, 690 N.E.2d 224 (Ind. 1997); Hough v. State, 690

N.E.2d 267 (Ind. 1997); Timberlake v. State, 690 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 1997); Stevens v. State, 691 N.E.2d 412

(Ind. 1997); Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1 141 (Ind. 1997); Roche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1115 (Ind. 1997);

Burris v. State, 687 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. 1997); Wrinkles v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1 156 (Ind. 1997).

' Houser v. State 678 N.E.2d 95 (Ind. 1 997); Palmer v. State 679 N.E.2d 887 (Ind. 1 997); Canaan

v. State 683 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. 1997); Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268 (Ind. 1997); Daniels v. State, 683

N.E.2d 557 (Ind. 1997); Whipps v. State, 685 N.E.2d 697 (Ind. 1997); Figert v. State, 686 N.E.2d 827 (Ind.

1997); Jaggers v. State 687 N.E.2d 180 (Ind. 1997); Stewart v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1254 (Ind. 1997); Ben-

Yisrayl V. State, 690 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. 1997).

"" Malachowski v. Bank One, Indianapolis, 682 N.E.2d 530 (Ind. 1997); Estate of Decker v. Farm

Credit Servs. of Mid-Am. 684 N.E.2d 1 137 (Ind. 1997); Nill v. Martin, 686 N.E.2d 1 16 (Ind. 1997); Nelson

V. Parker, 687 N.E.2d 187 (Ind. 1997).



470 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 3 1 :457

'''' Consolidated Rail Corp., Inc. v. Lewelien, 682 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. 1997); Hefty v. Certified

Settlement Class, 680 N.E.2d 843 (Ind. 1997); Calumet Nat. Bank v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 682 N.E.2d
785 (Ind. 1997); Tazian v. Cline, 686 N.E.2d 95 (Ind. 1997); Nelson v. Parker, 687 N.E.2d 187 (Ind. 1997);

Yanoff V. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1295 (Ind. 1997).

'^ Gray v. National City Bank 687 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 1997).

''' Nill V. Martin, 686 N.E.2d 1 16 (Ind. 1997).

•='= West Clark Community Sch. v. H. L. K., 690 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. 1997).

" Russell V. Russell, 682 N.E.2d 513 (Ind. 1997); J. W. L. v. A. J. P., 682 N.E.2d 519 (Ind. 1997).

»s McGraw-Edison Co. v. Northeastern Rural Elec. Membership Corp., 678 N.E.2d 1 1 20 (Ind. 1 997);

Haseman v. Orman, 680 N.E.2d 531 (Ind. 1997); Perdue Farms Inc. v. Pryor, 683 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. 1997).

'"' Wiersma Trucking Co. v. Pfaff, 678 N.E.2d 1 10 (Ind. 1997); Smith v. Pancner, 679 N.E.2d 893

(Ind. 1997); Miller v. Memorial Hosp. of South Bend, Inc., 679 N.E.2d 1329 (Ind. 1997); Haseman v. Orman,

680 N.E.2d 531 (Ind. 1997); Perdue Farms Inc., v. Pryor, 683 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. 1997); Warner Trucking, Inc.,

V. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 686 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 1997); McGlothlin v. M & U Trucking, Inc., 688 N.E.2d 1243
(Ind. 1997); Bloemker v. Detroit Deisel Corp., 687 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. 1997).

" Doe V. Methodist Hosp., 690 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. 1997).

jj Smith V. Pancner, 679 N.E.2d 893 (Ind. 1997); Miller v. Memorial Hosp. of South Bend, Inc., 679

N.E.2d 1329 (Ind. 1997); Cram v. Howell, 680 N.E.2d 1096 (Ind. 1997).

^^ Cox V. American Aggregates Corp., 684 N.E.2d 193 (Ind. 1997); Estate of Decker v. Farm Credit

Servs. of Mid-Am., 684 N.E.2d 1 137 (Ind. 1997).

" Board of Tax Comm'rs v. Two Market Square Assocs., 679 N.E.2d 882 (Ind. 1997).
""" Harbour v. Arelco, Inc., 678 N.E.2d 381 (Ind. 1997); McGraw-Edison Co. v. Northeastern Rural

Elec. Membership Corp., 678 N.E.2d 1 120 (Ind. 1997); USA Life One Ins. Co. v. Nuckolls, 682 N.E.2d 534

(Ind. 1997); Thomson Consumer Elec, Inc. v. Wabash Valley Refuse Removal, Inc., 682 N.E.2d 792 (Ind.

1997); Northern Ind. Commuter Transp. Dist. v. Chicago Southshore & South Bend R.R., 685 N.E.2d 680
(Ind. 1 997); Trotter v. Nelson, 684 N.E.2d 1 1 50 (Ind. 1 997); Johnson v. Blankenship, 688 N.E.2d 1 250 (Ind.

1997); Orr v. Westminster Village North, Inc., 689 N.E.2d 712 (Ind. 1997).

"" Fleming v. International Pizza Supply Corp., 676 N.E.2d 1051 (Ind. 1997).

''" Orr V. Westminster Village North, Inc. 689 N.E.2d 712 (Ind. 1997).

''•' Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Guzorek, 690 N.E.2d 664 (Ind. 1997); Smith v. Pancner, 679 N.E.2d

893 (Ind. 1997); USA Life One Ins. Co. v. Nuckolls, 682 N.E.2d 534 (Ind. 1997); Warner Trucking, Inc. v.

Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 686 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 1997); Conrad v. Universal Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 686 N.E.2d 840
(Ind. 1997); Erie Ins. Co. v. George, 681 N.E.2d 189 (Ind. 1997); Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 690

N.E.2d 675 (Ind. 1997); In re Lehman, 690 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. 1997).

'»'» Haseman v. Orman, 680 N.E.2d 531 (Ind. 1997).

" Harbour v. Arelco, Inc., 678 N.E.2d 381 (Ind. 1997).

^" Cox V. American Aggregates Corp., 684 N.E.2d 193 (Ind. 1997).

" Northern Ind. Commuter Transp. Dist. v. Chicago Southshore & South Bend R.R, 685 N.E.2d 680
(Ind. 1997).

"" Board ofTax Comm'rs v. Two Market Square Assocs., 679 N.E.2d 882 (Ind. 1997); Sullivan v.

Day, 681 N.E.2d 713 (Ind. 1997); In re Madison County Probation Officers' Salaries, 682 N.E.2d 498 (Ind.

1997); Indiana High Sch. Athletic Ass'n v. Reyes, No. 79S02-9605-CV-361, 1998 WL 7094 (Ind. Dec. 19,
1997); Indiana High Sch. Athletic Ass'n v. Carlberg, No. 29S02-9610-CV-681, 1997 WL 781628 (Ind. Dec.
19, 1997); West Clark Community Sch. v. H. L. K., 690 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. 1997).



1998] INDIANA SUPREME COURT 471

^ Northern Ind. Commuter Transp. Dist. v. Chicago Southshore & South Bend R.R., 685 N.E.2d
680 (Ind. 1997).

"-
J. A. W. V. State, 687 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. 1997).

'='<
J. A. W. V. State, 687 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. 1997).

yy Pierce v. State 677 N.E.2d 39 (Ind. 1997); Joyner v. State 678 N.E.2d 386 (Ind. 1997); Palmer v.

State, 679 N.E.2d 887 (Ind. 1997); Jervis v. State 679 N.E.2d 875 (Ind. 1997); In re Madison County Probation

Officers' Salaries, 682 N.E.2d 498 (Ind. 1997); Lee v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1 143 (Ind. 1997); Saylor v. State, 686

N.E.2d 80 (Ind. 1997). Alvarado v. State 686 N.E.2d 819 (Ind. 1997); State v. Moss-Dwyer, 686 N.E.2d 109

(Ind. 1997); Smith v. State 686 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. 1997); State v. Hurst, 688 N.E.2d 402 (Ind. 1997); Carter

V. State, 686 N.E.2d 834 (Ind. 1997); Matheney v. State, 688 N.E.2d 883 (Ind. 1997); Baird v. State, 688

N.E,2d 91 1 (Ind. 1997); Valentin v. State 688 N.E.2d 412 (Ind. 1997); Taylor v. State, 689 N.E.2d 699 (Ind.

1997); Williams v. State, 690 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 1997); Ridley v. State, 690 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. 1997); Indiana

High Sch. Athletic Ass'n v. Carlberg, No. 29S02-9610-CV-681, 1997 WL 781628 (Ind. Dec. 19, 1997);
Stevens v. State, 691 N.E.2d 412 (Ind. 1997); Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 690N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. 1997); Roche v.

State, 690 N.E.2d 1115 (Ind. 1997); Doe v. Methodist Hosp., 690 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. 1997); Wrinkles v. State,

690N.E.2dll56(Ind. 1997).