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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT