ILNews

Justices take 5 cases, deny IBM appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme accepted five cases last week on transfer, including an appeal of an order that a woman pay $4,000 a month to her ex-husband in spousal maintenance. The justices also denied 18 cases, including appeals by IBM and subcontractor regarding the failed contract to update the state’s welfare system.

Justices will hear Barbara J. Pohl v. Michael G. Pohl, 32A04-1404-DR-245, in which Barbara Pohl seeks to reduce the $4,000 in spousal maintenance she pays to her ex-husband to $1,000 a month, based in part on Michael Pohl’s increased Social Security income payments. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the evidence supported the maintenance amount.

The justices also took:

  • Jonathan D. Carpenter v. State of Indiana, 02A05-1404-CR-246, in which the Indiana Court of Appeals held Jonathan Carpenter’s federal and state constitutional rights weren’t violated when police entered his home without a warrant based on concerns an injured animal or person may be inside.
  • Joseph K. Buelna v. State of Indiana, 20S04-1404-CR-243, a not-for publication decisions in which the Court of Appeals affirmed Joseph Buelna’s conviction and sentence for Class A felony manufacturing methamphetamine. He argued the trial court erred in admitting evidence found in a warrantless search, that the state didn’t present sufficient evidence to support the conviction and his 50-year sentence, with 20 years suspended, was inappropriate.
  • Wellpoint, Inc. (f/k/a Anthem, Inc.) and Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa; AIG Europe (U.K.) Limited, New Hampshire Ins. Co., et al., 49S05-1404-PL-244, a not-for-publication opinion in which the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Wellpoint’s insurers, who denied coverage for its defense and settlement of a number of lawsuits against it.
  • In the Matter of the Guardianship of N.R., N.R. v. Eva Willis, et al., 45S05-1404-GU-251 a guardianship appeal out of Lake County that is going directly to the Supreme Court.


The high court was divided over denying transfer to the appeals by the ACS Human Services LLC and IBM in International Business Machines Corporation v. ACS Human Services, LLC, 49A02-1301-PL-49. Justice Steven David voted to grant petition for transfer. Justice Mark Massa did not participate in the decision to deny transfer. The Court of Appeals in November affirmed trial court orders that IBM pay a subcontractor for costs it incurred related to lawsuits over the failed contract between IBM and the state to modernize Indiana’s welfare system.

The list of transfers for the week ending April 11 is available on the court’s website.
 

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. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

  2. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  3. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

  4. My dear Smith, I was beginning to fear, from your absense, that some Obrien of the Nanny State had you in Room 101. So glad to see you back and speaking truth to power, old chum.

  5. here is one from Reason magazine. these are not my words, but they are legitimate concerns. http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/03/fearmongering-at-the-splc quote: "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which would paint a box of Wheaties as an extremist threat if it thought that would help it raise funds, has issued a new "intelligence report" announcing that "an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) -- a 244% jump." To illustrate how dangerous these groups are, the Center cites some recent arrests of right-wing figures for planning or carrying out violent attacks. But it doesn't demonstrate that any of the arrestees were a part of the Patriot milieu, and indeed it includes some cases involving racist skinheads, who are another movement entirely. As far as the SPLC is concerned, though, skinheads and Birchers and Glenn Beck fans are all tied together in one big ball of scary. The group delights in finding tenuous ties between the tendencies it tracks, then describing its discoveries in as ominous a tone as possible." --- I wonder if all the republicans that belong to the ISBA would like to know who and why this outfit was called upon to receive such accolades. I remember when they were off calling Trent Lott a bigot too. Preposterous that this man was brought to an overwhelmingly republican state to speak. This is a nakedly partisan institution and it was a seriously bad choice.

ADVERTISEMENT