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. 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