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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT