ILNews

Justices to weigh civil court rulings in criminal wrongful death case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Lake County civil case filed against a driver who hit a woman causing fatal injuries will go before the Indiana Supreme Court to determine whether the court’s preliminary motions delaying the case were proper.

Justices agreed to hear an interlocutory appeal in the wrongful death action Joseph D. Hardiman and Jaketa L. Patterson, as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Britney R. Meux, Deceased v. Jason R. Cozmanoff, 45S03-1309-CT-619. Britney Meux was jogging when she was hit by a car driven by Jason Cozmanoff, who was charged with 13 crimes including reckless homicide.

With the criminal case pending, Lake Superior Judge Diane Kavadias Schneider granted a stay of discovery in the civil case requested by Cozmanoff, who argued that requiring the civil case to proceed would infringe on his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The trial court also ordered Cozmanoff to answer the complaint within 30 days.

Both sides asked the Court of Appeals to review the trial court’s ruling, and the appellate panel issued a not-for-publication opinion in May that later was revised to a for-publication ruling. The panel concluded the discovery stay should be lifted and the civil litigation allowed to proceed.

The case is one of two appeals the Supreme Court added to its docket for the week ending Sept. 27. Justices also agreed to grant transfer in Gayle Fischer v. Michael and Noel Heymann, 49S02-1309-PL-620, in which the Court of Appeals reduced a damages award from almost $94,000 to $117 after a couple backed out of a condo purchase agreement in a dispute over needed electrical repairs.

The court declined transfer in 22 cases and vacated transfer in Indiana Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a The Indianapolis Star v. Jeffrey M. Miller, et al., 49S02-1305-PL-311. Justices in that case heard oral argument one day before issuing an order that let stand a trial court ruling ordering the Star to provide identifying information regarding an online commenter in a defamation case.

Complete transfer disposition lists may be viewed here.
 

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. 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.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT