ILNews

Justices accept 4 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has taken four cases, including one that deals with an insurance dispute over cleanup costs.

In State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Flexdar Inc., No. 49S02-1104-PL-199, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Flexdar in State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co.’s action seeking declaration that it owed no coverage for environmental cleanup costs. The judges held State Auto’s pollution exclusion is ambiguous and unenforceable, so it didn’t preclude coverage. The Court of Appeals also concluded that Indiana Evidence Rule 407 may bar evidence of subsequent policy revisions offered to resolve ambiguity in an executed insurance contract.

In Tonya Peete v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-1104-CR-201, the Court of Appeals affirmed Tonya Peete’s convictions of two counts of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. She argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to show that she knowingly or intentionally violated an ex parte protective order.

In Glenn L. Carpenter v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-1104-CR-198, the lower appellate court affirmed Glenn Carpenter’s conviction of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent offender, his adjudication as a habitual offender, and the 40-year sentence imposed. Carpenter challenged the admission of evidence that drugs and paraphernalia were found on him and his sentence, which was enhanced by 20 years on the habitual offender count.

In Christopher Jewell v. State of Indiana, No. 32S04-1104-CR-200, the Court of Appeals affirmed Christopher Jewell’s convictions of and aggregate 40-year sentence for six counts of sexual misconduct and child molesting. He argued recorded statements admitted as evidence were procured and admitted in violation of his constitutional rights to counsel.

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

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

  3. 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?

  4. 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"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT