ILNews

Justices take 4 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to four cases last week, including three that involved divided lower court rulings.

In Ann L. Miller and Richard A. Miller v. Glenn L. Dobbs, D.O., and Partners In Health, 15S05-1302-CT-91, the majority on the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Dr. Glenn Dobbs and Partners in Health on the issue of whether Ann and Richard Miller’s proposed medical malpractice complaint was timely filed with the Department of Insurance.

Judge Nancy Vaidik dissented, claiming that Judge James Kirsch created a new test to determine whether a complaint is timely filed and shifted the burden of ensuring fees are paid to the DOI instead of the attorney. In this case, the attorney did not include the $7 filing fee when mailing the complaint, but sent the fee on the date the statute of limitations expired.

Jeremiah Cline v. State of Indiana, 06S05-1302-MI-92, has a dissent from Chief Judge Margret Robb, in which she believed that the trial court has authority to “expunge” Jeremiah Cline’s existing information from the state Sex Offender Registry. The majority agreed with Cline that he has no obligation to register but that he must go through the Department of Correction to remove his name.

In Heather N. Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc., 49S02-1302-CT-89, the Court of Appeals was divided as to whether Hubler Nissan was entitled to summary judgment on Heather Kesling’s lawsuit that made Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Crime Victims Relief Act, and fraud claims. A little more than a year after she bought the car, she sued and an inspector found the car was unsafe to drive.

The majority found an issue of material fact as to whether Hubler made a representation in its advertisement that the car Kesling bought had performance, uses or benefits that it didn’t have and that the dealer should have known that the car didn’t have those characteristics. Judge Ezra Friedlander dissented, believing the ad did not run afoul of the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act.

The Supreme Court also took Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor in interest to The Money Store Investment Corp., f/d/b/a First Union Small Business Capital v. Neal A. Summers, et al., 02S04-1302-CP-90. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the appeal, finding Wells Fargo failed to timely file its notice of appeal. It later affirmed most of the $627,000 judgment in favor of restaurant operator Neal Summers, who was sued by former mortgagors. The COA did order recalculation of a judgment based on Summer’s restaurant’s earnings.

The justices declined to take 12 cases on transfer.

 

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