ILNews

Justices accept 3 cases, including environmental suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court agreed last week to take three cases – an environmental damages lawsuit, an insurance dispute and a woman’s challenge to her drug charges.

The justices released their transfer list Monday, which included 21 denials for transfer. They did accept:

•    James T. Mitchell v. 10th and the Bypass, LLC, and Elway, Inc., 53S01-1303-PL-222, in which James Mitchell lost his appeal of a ruling in Monroe Circuit Court that found he had caused environmental damage while running a dry cleaning business on the same site of 10th and The Bypass LLC. The LLC sued Mitchell, and the trial court initially granted his request for partial summary judgment. It was later vacated after the LLC presented evidence from a former employee of Mitchell’s who testified to chemical spills. The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld their ruling on rehearing in December.

•    Howard Justice v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 49S02-1303-PL-221, in which the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of American Family Mutual Insurance Co. in a dispute over whether it should pay Howard Justice’s claim for underinsured motorist coverage.

•    Danielle Kelly v. State of Indiana, 30S01-1303-CR-220, in which the Court of Appeals twice upheld the denial of Danielle Kelly’s motion to suppress evidence found after the vehicle she was riding in was stopped and searched by police. She claimed on interlocutory appeal that the search violated the federal and state constitutions, as well as that statements she made to police should be suppressed. The COA granted Kelly’s petition for rehearing, but again affirmed the denial to suppress evidence.  Both decisions by the appeals court were in not-for-publication decisions.

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