Search Results

Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of the Honorable Scott A. Norrick, Judge of the Madison Circuit Court
24S-JD-35
Judicial discipline. Suspends Madison Circuit Court Judge Scott Norrick, without pay for 45 days commencing June 3, with the suspension terminating and Norrick being automatically reinstated to office July 18. Finds Norrick engaged in judicial misconduct by: failing to supervise his staff in the processing of orders, which resulted in him presiding over civil cases in which he or his son were the attorneys of record; erroneously issuing an ex parte change-of-custody order without giving the opposing party notice or an opportunity to respond; and failing to supervise his staff in the processing of criminal cases, which led to delays in issuing warrants, missing orders and chronological case summary (entries, and involuntarily dismissing sixteen criminal cases. All justices concurred except for Justice Geoffrey Slaughter, who would reject the conditional agreement, believing more severe discipline is warranted.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jason Kelly and Myka Kelly v. State of Indiana, et al.
23A-CT-1845
Civil tort. Affirms the Wabash Circuit Court’s granting of a partial motion by the State of Indiana to dismiss Jason and Myka Kelly’s breach of contract claim against the Indiana Department of Child Services and several individual DCS employees. Finds that the trial court did not err in entering judgment as a matter of law in favor of the state. Also finds the Kellys have not alleged and there is no evidence in the record that the state engaged in acts of contractual sabotage or bad faith. Finally, finds that because the approval of the governor, which is statutorily required, and the approval of the attorney general were not obtained, and, where there is no evidence in the record that the state engaged in acts of contractual sabotage or bad faith, the agreement is not enforceable.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Thomas S. Gray v. State of Indiana
23A-CR-1871
Criminal. Affirms the Allen Superior Court’s revocation of Thomas Gray’s probation. Finds that Gray admitted that he committed Level 5 felony child exploitation when he pled guilty and a person of ordinary intelligence would understand that active participation in a treatment program intended to treat criminal behavior would require the person to take responsibility for committing that crime. Also finds that Additional Condition of Probation #2 adequately informed Gray that his failure to comply with the conditions of the sexual perpetrator treatment program would result in a probation violation, and therefore, it was not unconstitutionally vague.