ILNews

Opinions May 23, 2013

May 23, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Tommy L. Morris, personal representative of the estate of Thomas Lynn Morris v. Salvatore Nuzzo
12-3220
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Vacates the dismissal of the claims of Tommy Morris against Nuzzo. The District Court erred in its determination that Nuzzo was fraudulently joined. Remands with instructions the case be further remanded to the Trumbull County Common Pleas Court of Ohio.

Indiana Court of Appeals
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Warsaw Chemical Company, Inc.
49A04-1203-CT-97
Civil tort. Reverses finding that the 1992 release of USF&G from claims or demands related to remediation did not bar coverage under the excess policies and judgment entered in favor of Warsaw for $417,953. Because the release covered the excess policies, the trial court erred in denying USF&G’s summary judgment motion on this point. Remands for entry of judgment in favor of the insurer.

City of Carmel, through its Redevelopment Commission v. Crider & Crider, Inc., Hagerman Construction Corporation
02A04-1208-PL-416
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of the city of Carmel’s motion to transfer venue in the lawsuit filed by Crider & Crider Inc. Hamilton County is the appropriate venue by virtue of Trial Rule 21(B).

C.N. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1210-JV-521
Juvenile. Affirms finding that C.N. committed what would be Class D felony auto theft if committed by an adult.

Roy Austin Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1209-PC-783
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Ernest P. Glass v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A04-1210-CR-552
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A misdemeanor battery and the revocation of Glass’ probation.

Kristol Toms v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1211-CR-585
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections for committing a new offense and violating terms of placement.

George A. Reese, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

31A05-1206-CR-309
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

Samuel Fancher v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1210-PC-790
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Joseph D. Hardiman and Jaketa L. Patterson, as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Britney R. Meux, Deceased v. Jason R. Cozmanoff (NFP)
45A03-1210-CT-437
Civil tort. Reverses order staying discovery but affirms order that Cozmanoff file an answer to the estate’s complaint. Remands for further proceedings.

Norman A. Ellis, Sr. v. Sikanyiso Ellis (NFP)

49A02-1201-DR-62
Domestic relation. Affirms order dissolving the parties’ marriage.

Charles Kootz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1209-PC-721
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jose Perez v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1208-CR-418
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of P.M., A.T. & A.P., Minor Children, and their Mother, S.T,; S.T. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1212-JT-548
Juvenile. Reverses order terminating parental rights.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT