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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT