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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT