Supreme Court grants 5 transfers

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court granted five transfers within the past week to cases dealing with traffic stops, life insurance polices, unpaid medical expenses, modification of a custody order, and plea agreements.

The high court granted transfer and released its opinion yesterday in Sergio Campos v. State of Indiana, No. 45S03-0804-CR-199, involving a traffic stop and Sergio Campos' arrest after police found drugs in the car. A story in today's Indiana Lawyer Daily covers the Campos case in more detail.

The Supreme Court granted transfer April 30 to Estate of Jerome Mintz v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. and Wayne E. Gruber, No. 49A05-0609-CV-532. At issue is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Wayne E. Gruber on the estate's negligence claim and whether the court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Connecticut General as to the estate's vicarious liability, negligence, and bad faith claims. Jerome Mintz was retiring and needed to convert his group life insurance policy into an individual policy. Mintz, who died before the suit concluded, didn't properly convert his policies because he believed Gruber had taken care of the conversion. When Connecticut General wouldn't allow the entire value of the group policy converted into his individual policy, the Mintzes brought a suit against Gruber and Connecticut General. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Transfer was also granted Wednesday in James Butler, as personal representative of Nondis Jane Butler, deceased v. Indiana Department of Insurance, et al., No. 49A05-0612-CV-742; In the Matter of the Paternity of K.I., by grandmother and next friend, Juanita Ivers v. Jeremy Hensley, No. 13A05-0706-JV-329; and Bruce Wayne St. Clair Jr. v. State of Indiana, No. 76A03-0708-CR-361.

At issue in Butler is whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence regarding payments and benefits from Medicare and Medicaid in violation of the collateral source rule and whether the court erred by denying the estate's request to recover Nondis Jane Butler's unpaid medical expenses pursuant to the Indiana Adult Wrongful Death Statute. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

In Ivers, the appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling that awarded custody of K.I. to Jeremy Hensley from Juanita Ivers and granted Ivers visitation. The appellate court remanded for a determination of whether the parental presumption had been overcome and if so, whether a modification is in the best interest of K.I. and whether there had been a change in one or more of the relevant statutory factors.

At issue in St. Clair is whether Bruce W. St. Clair waived his right to a direct appeal by entering a plea agreement with a fixed plea. The trial court denied St. Clair's petition, but the appellate court reversed it, finding he had an open plea and met the requirements of Post-Conviction Rule 2. The Indiana Court of Appeals remanded the issue so that St. Clair would have the opportunity to argue for a lesser sentence in accordance with his open plea agreement.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.