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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT