ILNews

Justices accept 4 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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. 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