ILNews

Judges uphold sanction against attorney

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals made two minor corrections to its original opinion ordering an attorney to pay appellate fees due to his conduct in a purported class-action lawsuit against Clarian Health Partners, but upheld the order the attorney pay the fees.

In Lawane Chaney on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., No. 49A05-0905-CV-263, attorney Ronald Weldy, former counsel of Lawane Chaney, sought rehearing on the Court of Appeals’ September 2011 opinion granting Clarian’s request for fees and costs against Weldy. The judges found that Weldy’s arguments and his court filings were “utterly devoid of all plausibility and therefore, were pursued in bad faith.”

In the rehearing, the judges admitted that the court’s opinion was incorrect in two ways. First, the record doesn’t support the finding that Weldy did not inform the trial court of the stay in his motion to compel. Second, the record doesn’t support the statement by the COA that he persisted in theory that Clarian had agreed to provide the discovery at issue after the trial court had vacated its motion to compel and deny the same.

Despite these errors, the judges reaffirmed their conclusion that Weldy should have to pay appellate fees and costs to Clarian. They corrected their original opinion and also denied Clarian’s request for additional fees and costs with regards to the rehearing petition.

 

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

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT