ILNews

Opinions June 19, 2014

June 19, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Devon Groves v. United States of America
12-3253
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Civil. Affirms denial of Groves’ Section 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence of 240 months in prison for one count each of possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of ammunition by a felon. Finds Groves was provided with effective assistance of counsel.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Thomson Inc. n/k/a Technicolor USA, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America n/k/a Century Indemnity Company, et al., and XL Insurance America, et al.
49A05-1109-PL-470
Civil plenary. Denies XL’s request to dismiss this appeal; affirms the Duty to Defend Order as finalized by the Allocation Order and the Defense Cost Orders, the trial court’s finding of two “occurrences” under the XL and Century policies and the ruling that Thomson must satisfy the deductible for each occurrence for XL’s 2000, 2001, and 2002 primary policies. Reverses and remands with instructions to apply the self-insured
retentions in XL’s 2003, 2004 and 2005 primary policies. Reverses the trial court’s ruling that the “personal injury” provisions in XL’s 2000 primary policy are inapplicable. Affirms the trial court’s application of a “continuous trigger” to XL’s policies but reverses and remands with instructions to use when the disease became reasonably capable of medical diagnosis as the trigger’s manifestation point. Reverses the trial court’s use of an “all sums” allocation method for XL’s and Century’s policies and remands with instructions to use an appropriate pro rata allocation method. Affirms the trial court’s ruling that TCETVT and Thomson SA are insureds under XL’s primary and umbrella policies. Affirms the trial court’s ruling regarding the reasonableness and necessity of Thomson’s defense costs as to XL and the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest on the defense costs as to XL. Chief Judge Vaidik concurs in part and dissents in part.

State of Indiana v. Randall Scott Stiverson (NFP)
76A03-1311-CR-421
Criminal. Reverses grant of Stiverson’s motion to dismiss charges of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangered a person. Remands for further proceedings.

Raven N. Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
62A01-1401-CR-29
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections day reporting program and order Young serve her suspended sentence in the Department of Correction.

Clifford J. Elswick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1311-CR-553
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by 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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT