Opinions May 23, 2013

May 23, 2013
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
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.
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
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)

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)

Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

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

Kristol Toms v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)

Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

Samuel Fancher v. State of Indiana (NFP)

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)
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)

Domestic relation. Affirms order dissolving the parties’ marriage.

Charles Kootz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jose Perez v. State of Indiana (NFP)

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)
Juvenile. Reverses order terminating parental rights.

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


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues