ILNews

Justices grant transfer, will hear 2 arguments this week

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
 The Indiana Supreme Court has granted one transfer and is hearing two other cases this week involving trade secrets and claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Justices late last week granted transfer of Steven Hollin v. State, 69A01-0609-CR-401, which was an unpublished memorandum ruling from the Court of Appeals in March. The case stems from a conviction and sentencing appeal involving conspiracy to commit burglary and a habitual offender charge. Hollin claimed it was fundamental error for the trial court to admit evidence of his criminal history in his sentencing, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the 40-year sentence in its ruling earlier this year.

On Friday, justices will hear two cases: Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc. v. Violet Mayberry , and the combined argument State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Jakupko, and Elliott v. Allstate Ins. Co..

In Bridgestone, the Madison Superior Court ordered that the tire maker disclose its skim stock formula for the tire, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Bridgestone argued that this trade secret should not be disclosed.

The emotional distress case of Jakupko stems from the Court of Appeals decision in November that held the definition of bodily injury in auto insurance policies includes any physical signs of emotional distress, and those symptoms can be independent torts worthy of their own claim.

Appellate judges expanded that holding in its January ruling in Elliott, which held the definition of bodily injury in an Allstate policy includes negligent infliction of emotional distress as long as it's susceptible to medical diagnosis and can be proven through medical evidence even when not accompanied by physical manifestations of that distress.

The arguments in Bridgestone begin at 9 a.m., followed by the combined arguments in Jakupko and Elliott at 9:45 a.m. All can be viewed online via live Web cast at http://www.indianacourts.org/apps/webcasts/default.aspx?view=table&yr=current&court=SUP&sort=
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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