ILNews

Opinions March 1, 2011

March 1, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Gary Hughes
18A02-1006-PL-659
Civil. Reverses and remands entry of judgment in favor of appellee-plaintiff Gary Hughes on his contract claim in the amount of $166,792.83. Auto-Owners contends, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying its summary judgment motion on the basis that Hughes’ suit was barred by a one-year limitation in the relevant insurance policy.
 
James Taylor and Nancy Taylor v. Ford Motor Co., et al.
49A02-1007-CT-823
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In their appeal, the Taylors argued the trial court did have subject matter jurisdiction. The Taylors filed a claim Feb. 12, 2009, that the defendants’ negligence caused James Taylor’s injuries which in turn caused his wife to lose the services of her husband. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 26, 2010, claiming that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of the Taylors’ claims because Indiana’s worker’s compensation laws provided the exclusive remedy.

Tyson G. Keplinger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1006-CR-610
Criminal. Affirms conviction of conspiracy to commit murder, a Class A felony, and attempted murder, a Class A felony.
 
A.K. and Jeffry G. Price v. K.M.K. (NFP)
34A05-1008-CT-522
Civil. Affirms trial court’s denial of Price’s request for attorney’s fees from appellee-respondent K.M.K., following K.M.K.’s action against A.K., which the trial court dismissed.
 
Denise Tinsley v. Marion T., LLC, et al. (NFP)
27A05-1008-CT-503
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees-defendants with respect to the estate’s claim for negligence resulting in Marvin Tinsley’s death.
 
Barry L. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A04-1006-CR-375
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of probation.
 
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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT