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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT