ILNews

Opinions March 15, 2011

March 15, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Debra L. Walker v. David M. Pullen
64S05-1101-CT-6
Civil tort. Reverses grant of Pullen’s motion to have a new trial and remands for the trial court to reinstate the original jury verdict of $10,070. The trial court judge only made general findings and not special findings as required by Indiana Trial Rule 59(J). Justice Dickson concurs in result.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Grange Mutual Casualty, et al. v. West Bend Mutual Ins., et al.
29A02-1008-PL-965
Civil plenary. Affirms in part and reverses in part summary judgment granted to West Bend Mutual. Finds that both policies were triggered – West Bend’s was triggered by the original fracturing of the storm drain pipe which resulted in immediate damage to the pipe and the subsequent flooding. Grange’s was triggered by the flood damage that occurred during its policy period. Remands for the trial court to apportion damages accordingly. Judge May dissents.

Jason W. Hall v. State of Indiana
25A05-1008-CR-534
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony burglary. Hall didn’t establish an abuse of the trial court’s sentencing discretion or that his sentence is inappropriate. He also wasn’t denied credit time to which he was entitled.

Lovetha Smitherman v. Kroger Limited Partnership I, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1008-PL-880
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of partial summary judgment to Kroger upon Smitherman’s claim for negligent hiring and retention.

Susan Ricketts v. Subaru of Indiana Automotive (NFP)
93A02-1008-EX-1030
Civil. Affirms order of the Worker’s Compensation Board on Ricketts’ claim for disability and medical benefits arising from a work related accident.

L.M. v. B.S., et al. (NFP)
71A03-1010-MI-514
Miscellaneous. Affirms order denying grandmother L.M.’s verified petition for grandparent visitation.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.H.; R.H. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
36A01-1008-JT-418
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Stochel was opposing counsel to me in several federal cases (including a jury trial before Judge Tinder) here in SDIN. He is a very competent defense and trial lawyer who knows federal civil procedure and consumer law quite well. Bob gave us a run for our money when he appeared on a case.

  2. Awesome, Brian! Very proud of you and proud to have you as a partner!

  3. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  4. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  5. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

ADVERTISEMENT