State Farm v. Radcliff - 8/20/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  August 20, 2014 
10:00 AM  EST

10 a.m. 29A04-1311-CT-542. This largest defamation verdict in Indiana’s history is once again before this court as an appeal to the trial court’s denial of State Farm’s Trial Rule 60(B) motion.  In its T.R. 60(B) motion, State Farm requested the trial court to grant a new trial on the limited issue of defamation based on State Farm’s discovery of new evidence purportedly establishing that Radcliff had procured the verdict by committing fraud on the court.

In its appeal, State Farm presents this court with four procedural issues which we restate as follows:

1.     Characterizing its T.R. 60(B) motion as solely a T.R. 60(B)(3) motion based on fraud and misconduct, State Farm asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by interpreting its T.R. 60(B) motion as a T.R. 60(B)(2) motion based on newly discovered evidence and applying T.R. 60(B)(2)’s requirements to its T.R. 60(B)(3) motion.

2.    Whether the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that State Farm’s T.R. 60(B)(3) motion was barred by the law of the case due to this court’s denial of State Farm’s Appellate Rule 37 motion for remand in the first appeal where this court addressed State Farm’s request for alternative relief based on “waiver notwithstanding” and our supreme court subsequently denied State Farm’s request for emergency relief based on its T.R. 60(B) motion.

3.    Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying State Farm’s T.R. 60(B) motion as a matter of law.

4.    Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to allow State Farm to engage in further protracted discovery pursuant to T.R. 60(D) and in ruling on the motion without an evidentiary hearing when Radcliff elected to respond to State Farm’s T.R. 60(B) motion on legal grounds as opposed to factual grounds and therefore no further pertinent evidence would need to be submitted to the trial court to aid in its ruling. 

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT