ILNews

Opinions Aug. 17, 2012

August 17, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Amerisure Insurance Co. v. National Surety Corp. v. Scottsdale Insurance Co.
11-2762, 11-2771
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms breakdown that Amerisure, Scottsdale, and National are liable for $1 million, $1 million and $900,000, respectively, of the $2.9 million settlement a steel worker won after injuring himself on the job. Declines to apply the ‘mend-the-hold’ doctrine in this case, and Amerisure and National were not prejudiced by Scottsdale’s litigation conduct.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Bryan J. Fields v. State of Indiana
20A04-1202-CR-57
Criminal. Affirms trial court denial of Fields’ request to reduce his Class D felony conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated to a Class A misdemeanor. In light of Brunner v. State and the plain language used by the Legislature, I.C. 35-38-1-17 does not grant the trial court the authority to reduce a felony conviction to a misdemeanor.  

John Willis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1112-CR-654
Criminal. Affirms trial court decision to not inform jury about Willis’ mental health issues to explain his behavior during voir dire.
 
Ronald Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1110-CR-616
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Darrell Hall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-5
Criminal. Remands for correction of the abstract of judgment to reflect that Hall was convicted of Class B misdemeanor battery.

Steven C. Lane v. Brandy D. Rosenquist and Hermann Ventures, LLC d/b/a Seasons Homecare (NFP)
43A03-1111-CT-534
Civil tort. Affirms denial of motion to correct error and exclusion of evidence regarding health insurance.

Mark Van Eaton and Cynthia Van Eaton Vallimont v. German American Bancorp (NFP)
42A01-1111-MF-535
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses order granting German American Bancorp’s motion to sell real estate. Remands for further proceedings.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT