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. 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