ILNews

Opinions Dec. 5, 2013

December 5, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Katherine Ryan v. Larry Janovsky
45A03-1304-DR-145
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Ryan’s petition for contempt and rule to show cause after Janovsky refused to sign a proposed qualified domestic relations order. The entry of a QDRO is not time-barred.

William Klepper, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ace American Insurance Company
15A05-1212-CC-645
Civil collection. Affirms. Because the “voluntary payment” and “legally obligated to pay” provisions preclude coverage, the trial court properly entered partial judgment in favor of ACE on this issue. Regarding the entry of final judgment on all claims, because of the distinct legal theories at play, the entry of final judgment in favor of ACE on the class’s bad faith claim would be premature at the this stage of the proceedings. Judge Crone dissents in part.

Old National Bancorp d/b/a Old National Trust Company, as Trustee of the Percy E. Goodrich Trust and the Hanover College Trust v. Hanover College
68A05-1303-TR-111
Trust. Dismisses Old National’s appeals from the trial court’s orders terminating the two trusts. The trial court’s termination orders took effect immediately and Old National did not request a stay of those orders. Once the trusts terminated, Old National’s representative capacity was terminated and, along with it, any power or ability to act on behalf of the trusts. Therefore, Old National cannot maintain this appeal in its representative capacity.

Keimonte Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-339
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Darryl L. Abron v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1301-PC-56
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.


The Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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