*1 501 (180) I, eighty holding regarding opinion one hundred Count vide notice within to the days of a loss of the occurrence and the of the Court of political involved. regarding subdivision II and III. Counts Pursuant to the Indiana 34-4-16.5-7. § Act, required to file the Claims failure
Tort DICKSON, GIYAN and eighty (180)days within one hundred notice JJ., concur. against as bar to claims or suits acts SHEPARD, C.J., I; concurs in Count dis- receive notice. those entitled to in II III. sents Counts and correctly maintains Court Werblo effec- decision this issue was 22, 1988, by the tively overruled on June in v. Supreme
United States Court Felder (1988), U.S.-, 108
Casey 487 S.Ct. in Wiscon-
sin state court and involved § provisions had notice in its tort
Wisconsin in claims to those involved act similar KIGER, Appellant D. Supreme and the United States instant case (Defendant Below), principles of fed- Court held that under the (Art. supremacy clause eralism Constitution, 2) 42 cl. of the Federal U.S.C. Indiana, Appellee preempted application of Wis- § (Plaintiff Below). claim statute to a consin’s notice of § brought in state court. action Wisconsin No. 23S01-8905-PC-375. reasoned that enforce- Felder Court Supreme Court Indiana. ment of the statute stood as an obstacle accomplishment execution of the and 5,May Congress objectives of purposes full First, placed for two reasons. the statute which was inconsistent burden
design compensatory with the and effect rights law on the
aims of the federal civil forcing right by of the federal
exercise sought
victims who 1983 redress state § entire- comply
courts to with
ly litigation in federal absent § Second, the enforcement
courts. frequently predictably
statute would litiga- in 1983
produce different outcomes § litigation solely on
tion based whether Ac- federal court. place
took state or concluded,
cordingly, the Felder Court outcome-de- apply such an
“States entertaining law substan-
terminative when Felder, rights in their courts.”
tive federal at-,
487 U.S. 108 S.Ct. holding Felder 139-40.
L.Ed.2d at issue instant dispositive (1988), Ind.App., George Hatcher Accordingly, the trial issue. on this
court is reversed the trial court is remanded
This cause consistent with entry *2 Carpenter, Defender, K. Public an skating Susan earlier at a altercation rink in Defender, Fey, Hope Deputy Public India- which Kenny been had struck. napolis, appellant. for It revenge was clear in trials both that Linley Pearson, Gen., Atty. E. John D. “Well, go was intended. let’s down Shuman, Gen., Deputy Atty. Indianapolis, get ’em,” Kiger Rick had dispute said. The appellee. for prior over whether there was a agreement weapons to use to even the odds CRIMINAL FOR PETITION TRANSFER in the superior manpower. Clearly, face of weapons were in fact used. SHEPARD, Chief Justice. trial, In Woods' Delilah Rusk testified question
The is whether one who has Kigers pulled that Woods weapons unsuccessfully appealed his conviction on from under the seats of the basis of the car sufficiency may the of evidence before going targets. after their She testified question seek second review of same during that through post-conviction being the discussion about out- relief. We hold numbered, Kiger Rick petition they such had said that by that is judica- barred res go would nearby get to a town “and ta. enough to take of care them.” She said Kiger In Rick K. was convicted of there any had not been earlier discussion or conspiracy battery to commit deadly with a weapons and she had not seen any until weapon, felony, a class C 35- §§ Woods Kenny Kiger actually and Rick and 41-5-2, (Burns 35-42-2-1 1979 Repl.), and fight. left the vehicle for the This Court years prison. sentenced to five Kiger held that an there was absence of evidence appealed conviction, arguing sufficiency concerning agreement an deadly to use of the evidence. His conviction was af- weapons. by Appeals. firmed Kiger the Court of trial, Kiger’s contrast, In State, by Delilah (Ind.App. No. 1-679-A-188 Dec. Rusk 1979). testified there had that been discus- being sion about they outnumbered “and 1986, Kiger petition post- In filed a for said, well, got we some stuff to take care seeking conviction relief to set aside his identify them.” Rusk not could prior grounds conviction insufficient participants statement, had made the He this evidence. relied on Court’s deci- club, but the “stuff” out turned to be a that separate sion the evidence in the trial pipe, and a chain with handle. of his insufficient was The Court of Appeals concluded that the establish Woods v. State Kiger’s evidence in (1980), qualita- trial was not Kiger Ind. tively Kiger’s different and vacated argued convic- that stated a has Woods new rule grounds tion on law, of insufficient evidence. agreement namely that an to com- may anmit offense be inferred but not It seems that the testimony to us merely completion from of an overt act. different, qualitatively but the issue of suf- ficiency Kiger’s evidence trial has The Court of reversed the trial already litigated. been The decision was Kiger’s petition post- denial of court’s for Kiger. adverse to relitigate He it rejected argument relief. conviction It through post-conviction procedures. law, Cam- concluding that Woods stated new Ind., bridge (1984), v. State agreement an that 1047; (1982),Ind., Adams v. State by or proved direct evidence inference is a 2d 771. long-established Mattingly rule. N.E.2d 650. petition The grant- State’s transfer is ed. We affirm the trial reviewed the evi- court. at both Rusk testified
dence trials. Delilah trials that Woods joined she David Kenny, Kiger on Larry, and Rick PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., seeking revenge pool venture to a concur. hall GIVAN, Justice, dissenting. KING, Defendant-Appellant, David W. majority respectfully
I dissent is correct its observation majority Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. statute, concerning conspiracy No. 49A02-8805-PC-188. *3 35-41-5-2, that it is no which states Code § ac- that a defense Indiana, in stat- such a statement quitted. While District. Third specific might upheld in a factual ute 19, situation, ap- April in the at bar facts case present error as pear to a fundamental 31,1989. May Rehearing Denied unpub- in his by Judge Robertson outlined opinion. lished (1930),202 Berry
In the case of 294, 706, Judge precise
Willoughby situation discussed co-con- held that the conviction of one stand
spirator not be allowed to should co-conspirator. acquittal
after do so would result in a “repugnancy
To Although Judge Wil-
upon record.” dictum, he Berry
loughby’s statement English support cases
cites three old
position. Berry
Judge does not nor Robertson cite English cited
does he cite the old cases
therein, proposi result tracks that but his dissenting Although I
tion of law. wrote a
opinion Woodsv. State Judge Pren conviction, the rever
tice reversed Woods’ proposition
sal nevertheless stands case, as to both
that the evidence sup Kiger,
Woods and was insufficient
port Judge
I therefore feel that Robertson’s right conclusion
decision reaches the granted should not be in this
transfer