ILNews

Justices take 5 cases, deny IBM appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme accepted five cases last week on transfer, including an appeal of an order that a woman pay $4,000 a month to her ex-husband in spousal maintenance. The justices also denied 18 cases, including appeals by IBM and subcontractor regarding the failed contract to update the state’s welfare system.

Justices will hear Barbara J. Pohl v. Michael G. Pohl, 32A04-1404-DR-245, in which Barbara Pohl seeks to reduce the $4,000 in spousal maintenance she pays to her ex-husband to $1,000 a month, based in part on Michael Pohl’s increased Social Security income payments. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the evidence supported the maintenance amount.

The justices also took:

  • Jonathan D. Carpenter v. State of Indiana, 02A05-1404-CR-246, in which the Indiana Court of Appeals held Jonathan Carpenter’s federal and state constitutional rights weren’t violated when police entered his home without a warrant based on concerns an injured animal or person may be inside.
  • Joseph K. Buelna v. State of Indiana, 20S04-1404-CR-243, a not-for publication decisions in which the Court of Appeals affirmed Joseph Buelna’s conviction and sentence for Class A felony manufacturing methamphetamine. He argued the trial court erred in admitting evidence found in a warrantless search, that the state didn’t present sufficient evidence to support the conviction and his 50-year sentence, with 20 years suspended, was inappropriate.
  • Wellpoint, Inc. (f/k/a Anthem, Inc.) and Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa; AIG Europe (U.K.) Limited, New Hampshire Ins. Co., et al., 49S05-1404-PL-244, a not-for-publication opinion in which the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Wellpoint’s insurers, who denied coverage for its defense and settlement of a number of lawsuits against it.
  • In the Matter of the Guardianship of N.R., N.R. v. Eva Willis, et al., 45S05-1404-GU-251 a guardianship appeal out of Lake County that is going directly to the Supreme Court.


The high court was divided over denying transfer to the appeals by the ACS Human Services LLC and IBM in International Business Machines Corporation v. ACS Human Services, LLC, 49A02-1301-PL-49. Justice Steven David voted to grant petition for transfer. Justice Mark Massa did not participate in the decision to deny transfer. The Court of Appeals in November affirmed trial court orders that IBM pay a subcontractor for costs it incurred related to lawsuits over the failed contract between IBM and the state to modernize Indiana’s welfare system.

The list of transfers for the week ending April 11 is available on the court’s website.
 

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. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT