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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT