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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT