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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT