ILNews

Opinions March 19, 2013

March 19, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Frontier Insurance Company v. J. Roe Hitchcock, Timothy S. Durham and Terry G. Whitesell
11-3510
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Affirms order the guarantors Hitchcock, Durham and Whitesell deposit with the clerk more than $1.5 million regarding a surety bond issued by Frontier Insurance. The guarantors must keep their promise to post collateral on Frontier’s demand.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Judy Chang v. Purdue University, The Trustees of Purdue University; Dr. France A. Cordova, President of Purdue University (in her official capacity); et al.
02A03-1206-PL-272
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Chang’s motion for summary judgment and her motion for directed verdict after she was dismissed from the nursing program, as well as the grant of summary judgment for Purdue University and other defendants on certain charges and the jury verdict against Chang.  She failed to designate evidence that the nursing department’s decision to dismiss her was arbitrary, capricious or made in bad faith, and the evidence sufficiently supported the jury’s verdict against her regarding the breach of contract claims.

Derek F. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
14A01-1205-CR-201
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction and sentence.

Alyse McGlaughlin and Connie Kleiner v. Jennifer M. McGlaughlin, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., and Roger McGlaughlin (NFP)
49A02-1208-PL-677
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of a motion to correct error following the grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm after the court reasoned that State Farm was entitled to complete set-off of any payment it would have owed to the appellants under the uninsured motorist endorsement they had purchased from State Farm because Alyse McGlaughlin settled with a third-party’s insurer for an amount equal to the UM endorsement’s policy limits.

First Financial Bank, National Assn., Hamilton, Ohio, as Successor in Interest to Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., Receiver of Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co. v. Fred L. Paris and Michelle S. Paris (NFP)
41A05-1209-MF-474
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses order denying First Financial’s motion for summary judgment on its claims against the Parises and remands for further proceedings.

Jeremy L. Musall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
61A01-1208-CR-371
Criminal. Affirms sentence for murder, felony murder, two counts of Class A felonies burglary and rape, and one count of Class A felony kidnapping.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT