ILNews

Justices grant 3 transfers, including dram shop case

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court has granted three transfers in three civil cases this week.

Transfers come in Michael M. Cubel v. Debra A. Cubel, No. 32A04-0605-CV-268, American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Direction in Design Inc., et al., No. 29A05-0511-CV-681, and Rebecca Shaw v. LDC Enterprises, et al., No. 29A05-0511-CV-681.

The Cubel appeal stems from a Hendricks County marriage dissolution case involving spousal maintenance and child support for college. In a memorandum opinion issued April 30, the Court of Appeals didn't find the court abused its direction on either issue but remanded to reconsider part of an order regarding the adult child's ability to contribute to her education.

In American Fire & Casualty, the justices will consider whether coverage for repair and replacement claims resulting from faulty workmanship existed under a commercial general liability policy issued to the custom-home designer business. The Court of Appeals in April affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment but remanded with instruction to try the contractual coverage issues and determine if American Fire should be estopped from denying coverage.

A third transfer comes in Shaw, a dram shop case from Fountain Circuit Court reversed by the Court of Appeals in March. The court held that Indiana law should apply to a complaint against a steakhouse owner in Illinois for an accident that happened in Indiana.

The owner moved to dismiss the counts on grounds that Illinois law should control the disposition of the action, and the trial court granted the motion. On appeal, the appellate court ruled, "The last event necessary to make LDC liable for its alleged wrong took place in Indiana with Kayla's death, and application of Illinois law would leave (mother Rebecca) Shaw without a remedy. The substantive law of Indiana therefore applies."
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