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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?