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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT