ILNews

Opinions Nov. 18, 2010

November 18, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
David N. Rain and Paramount International Inc. v. Rolls-Royce Corp.
10-1290
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms partial summary judgment in favor of Rolls-Royce on Rain’s claim for breach of contract by breaching a non-disparagement provision in a settlement agreement after Rolls-Royce filed a Texas lawsuit involving Rain and Paramount. The requirements for applying Indiana’s absolute privilege are satisfied - the allegations were made in the course of a judicial proceeding to which they were relevant. Affirms the judgment following a bench trial on breach of contract in favor of Rolls-Royce after Rolls-Royce asked Rain to leave an event. Finds that the meaning of the word “disparage” in the settlement agreement properly is limited to actions dishonoring, discrediting, denigrating or belittling the parties’ economic, business or professional interests.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jamie Wicker v. Rodney McIntosh, et al.
72A05-0912-CV-743
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of intervening plaintiff United Farm Family Mutual Insurance Co. on its complaint for declaratory judgment in Wicker’s negligence suit. The trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of the insurer as the unambiguous language of the insurance policy excludes coverage. The exception to the exclusion relied upon by Wicker does not apply as it is uncontroverted that the accident leading to the claim of damages occurred at an uninsured location.

Patrice Cotton v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company
49A02-1005-CT-575
Civil tort. Affirms partial summary judgment for Auto-Owners Insurance Co. on Cotton’s complaint seeking coverage under a garage policy issued by Auto-Owners to Jim Bailey Auto Sales for injuries sustained in a car accident. For an “incidental” act or occurrence to be insured, it must bear a direct relationship to coverage under the garage liability policy, and Cotton has not shown such a relationship here. Cotton has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to strike the affidavit of the dealer, Jim Bailey.

Patrick Alvey v. Natalie K. (Alvey) Hite (NFP)
82A05-1002-DR-141
Domestic relation. The dissolution court’s failure to assign any value to Patrick’s inherited property and not including it in the marital estate is a clear error. Remands with instructions for the dissolution court to include Patrick’s inherited property in the marital estate, to value the property, and to issue and new order redistributing the marital assets and liabilities accordingly. Affirms dissolution decree in all other respects.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT