ILNews

Opinions Dec. 6, 2012

December 6, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Connie Yates, Rick Yates, Jason Tibbs, and Pauline Tibbs v. Levi Wayne Kemp

50A04-1204-CT-192
Civil tort. Reverses grant of partial summary judgment to Kemp on the Yateses’ and Tibbses’ claims for nuisance. Based on the plain language of I.C. 14-22-31.5-6 and its context in the act as a whole, Kemp is not shielded by section 6 from liability related to his neighbors’ nuisance claims arising from noise pollution. There is also a material fact as to whether Kemp has caused his neighbors to experience inconvenience, annoyance or discomfort.

Thomson, Inc., n/k/a Technicolor USA, Inc., Technicolor, Inc., and Technicolor Limited v. Continental Casualty Co.; Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. & Travelers Property Casualty Co. of Am., et al. 
49A05-1201-PL-24
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Continental as to whether its umbrella policy issued to Technicolor covers losses resulting from administrative agencies. Under California law, damages under the umbrella policy are limited to those as a result of courtroom litigation rather than administrative proceedings.

In Re: The Adoption of K.H.: S.H. (Mother) v. W.B. and B.B. (Guardians) (NFP)
59A01-1205-AD-212
Adoption. Affirms denial of motion to correct error, which challenged the adoption of K.H.

Toni Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-CR-367
Criminal. Affirms conviction of disorderly conduct.

Hugh Z. Nelson v. Renee Burtin (NFP)
45A03-1111-DR-576
Domestic relation. Dismisses appeal of the disposition of the marital assets.

Andra Dossey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A04-1204-CR-175
Criminal. Affirms order Dossey serve his entire previously suspended sentence after his probation was revoked.

Steven Kamp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
66A05-1109-PC-485
Post conviction. Grants rehearing to clarify certain factual assertions made in the original opinion and reaffirms in all respects.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT