ILNews

Justices accept 4 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The Indiana Supreme Court has taken four cases, including one that deals with an insurance dispute over cleanup costs.

In State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Flexdar Inc., No. 49S02-1104-PL-199, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Flexdar in State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co.’s action seeking declaration that it owed no coverage for environmental cleanup costs. The judges held State Auto’s pollution exclusion is ambiguous and unenforceable, so it didn’t preclude coverage. The Court of Appeals also concluded that Indiana Evidence Rule 407 may bar evidence of subsequent policy revisions offered to resolve ambiguity in an executed insurance contract.

In Tonya Peete v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-1104-CR-201, the Court of Appeals affirmed Tonya Peete’s convictions of two counts of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. She argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to show that she knowingly or intentionally violated an ex parte protective order.

In Glenn L. Carpenter v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-1104-CR-198, the lower appellate court affirmed Glenn Carpenter’s conviction of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent offender, his adjudication as a habitual offender, and the 40-year sentence imposed. Carpenter challenged the admission of evidence that drugs and paraphernalia were found on him and his sentence, which was enhanced by 20 years on the habitual offender count.

In Christopher Jewell v. State of Indiana, No. 32S04-1104-CR-200, the Court of Appeals affirmed Christopher Jewell’s convictions of and aggregate 40-year sentence for six counts of sexual misconduct and child molesting. He argued recorded statements admitted as evidence were procured and admitted in violation of his constitutional rights to counsel.

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. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  2. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  3. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

  4. Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone

  5. John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.

ADVERTISEMENT