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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT