ILNews

Opinions July 14, 2010

July 14, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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
.
 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT