Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Eastern Alliance Insurance Group, Chubb Insurance Group, and Total Interior Systems America, LLC v. Elizabeth Howell
93A02-0912-EX-1287
Civil. Reverses penalties assessed against Eastern Alliance by the Full Worker’s Compensation Board due to a lack of
diligence. The board’s factual findings demonstrate that Eastern Alliance reasonably investigated the claim and communicated
with the parties, and afterwards it reasonably determined that it was not liable for the claim. Vacates penalties assessed
against the company and remands that the board determine and enter an order regarding whether Chubb Insurance should be held
responsible for the entirety of the penalty and attorneys’ fees awarded for its lack of diligence.
Paul
Christy and Julia Christy v. Paul Sebo and Anita Sebo
55A05-1002-CC-131
Civil. Reverses the order denying the Christys’ request for attorney’s fees and costs against the Sebos in the
Christys’ defense of an adverse possession claim and litigation of a breach of warranty claim. Summary judgment was
granted in favor of the Christys and against the Sebos on whether the Sebos breached the warranty of title and the Sebos have
not appealed that ruling. The fact that the Christys and the Clarks ultimately settled their adverse possession dispute is
irrelevant to the question of whether Sebos breached the warranty of title. Remands for further proceedings.
Randy
O'Brien, et al. v. C. Bruce Davidson, et al.
49A04-0910-CV-569
Civil. Reverses order granting summary judgment in favor of The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Co. in Ashby and O’Brien’s
legal malpractice action against The Bar Plan’s insured, C. Bruce Davidson Jr. Bar Plan has been able to investigate
and defend the clients’ claims against the insured after receiving prompt, actual written notice of the claims from
the clients.
Fidelity
National Title Insurance Company v. Rhys Mussman and Sally Mussman
64A03-0905-CV-204
Civil. Reveres grant of summary judgment of $1.6 million in favor of the Mussmans on their complaint alleging conversion
of funds held in an escrow account by Intercounty Title Company. ITC was Fidelity’s title insurance agent, not its agent
for closing and escrow services, so the trial court erred when it held the Mussmans are entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Remands with instructions.
Jeannie
Hall v. Larry Hall Trust and Jack Hall, Trustee (NFP)
64A05-0912-CV-715
Civil. Affirms determination that Jeannie Hall is not entitled to the income from all of the properties in the Larry A. Hall
Trust.
Maurice
J. Tatum v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1213
Criminal. Affirms order revoking probation.
John
Jacob Campbell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-0912-CR-1189
Criminal. Reverses order revoking probation and remands with instructions to the trial court to accommodate Campbell’s
indigence consistent with the opinion.
Michael
Furlong v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-0911-CR-658
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.
Marcus
R. Berry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1002-CR-109
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.
Johnny
Byers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-0910-CR-612
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder.
Shalini
Kohli v. Vishal Mahajan (NFP)
29A02-1002-DR-131
Domestic relation. Affirms the decree dissolving marriage.
Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.














Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.