ILNews

Appellate court travels to Vincennes

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals will hear arguments at Vincennes University Thursday in a case that seeks to determine who is responsible to pay costs and expenses related to environmental contamination.

In P.R. Mallory & Co., Inc., et al., v. American Casualty Co., et al., No. 54A01-0903-CV-142, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of American Casualty Co. and other defendants in P.R. Mallory & Co.'s suit maintaining that the defendants were obligated to pay for expenses for environmental pollution cleanup, and on the claims of breach of contract or anticipatory breach of contract. The trial court ruled the plaintiffs provided late notice to American Casualty and the other defendants under the insurance policies.

P.R. Mallory argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment; the defendants contend P.R. Mallory's appeal is untimely and should be dismissed.

Judges L. Mark Bailey, Elaine Brown, and Edward Najam will hear the arguments in the case from Montgomery Circuit Court at 11 a.m. in Shircliff Auditorium on the campus of Vincennes University.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT