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. Some are above the law in Indiana. Some lined up with Lodges have controlled power in the state since the 1920s when the Klan ruled Indiana. Consider the comments at this post and note the international h.q. in Indianapolis. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/human-trafficking-rising-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/42468. Brave journalists need to take this child torturing, above the law and antimarriage cult on just like The Globe courageously took on Cardinal Law. Are there any brave Hoosier journalists?

  2. I am nearing 66 years old..... I have no interest in contacting anyone. All I need to have is a nationality....a REAL Birthday...... the place U was born...... my soul will never be at peace. I have lived my life without identity.... if anyone can help me please contact me.

  3. This is the dissent discussed in the comment below. See comments on that story for an amazing discussion of likely judicial corruption of some kind, the rejection of the rule of law at the very least. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774#comment

  4. That means much to me, thank you. My own communion, to which I came in my 30's from a protestant evangelical background, refuses to so affirm me, the Bishop's courtiers all saying, when it matters, that they defer to the state, and trust that the state would not be wrong as to me. (LIttle did I know that is the most common modernist catholic position on the state -- at least when the state acts consistent with the philosophy of the democrat party). I asked my RCC pastor to stand with me before the Examiners after they demanded that I disavow God's law on the record .... he refused, saying the Bishop would not allow it. I filed all of my file in the open in federal court so the Bishop's men could see what had been done ... they refused to look. (But the 7th Cir and federal judge Theresa Springmann gave me the honor of admission after so reading, even though ISC had denied me, rendering me a very rare bird). Such affirmation from a fellow believer as you have done here has been rare for me, and that dearth of solidarity, and the economic pain visited upon my wife and five children, have been the hardest part of the struggle. They did indeed banish me, for life, and so, in substance did the the Diocese, which treated me like a pariah, but thanks to this ezine ... and this is simply amazing to me .... because of this ezine I am not silenced. This ezine allowing us to speak to the corruption that the former chief "justice" left behind, yet embedded in his systems when he retired ... the openness to discuss that corruption (like that revealed in the recent whistleblowing dissent by courageous Justice David and fresh breath of air Chief Justice Rush,) is a great example of the First Amendment at work. I will not be silenced as long as this tree falling in the wood can be heard. The Hoosier Judiciary has deep seated problems, generational corruption, ideological corruption. Many cases demonstrate this. It must be spotlighted. The corrupted system has no hold on me now, none. I have survived their best shots. It is now my time to not be silent. To the Glory of God, and for the good of man's law. (It almost always works that way as to the true law, as I explained the bar examiners -- who refused to follow even their own statutory law and violated core organic law when banishing me for life -- actually revealing themselves to be lawless.)

  5. to answer your questions, you would still be practicing law and its very sad because we need lawyers like you to stand up for the little guy who have no voice. You probably were a threat to them and they didnt know how to handle the truth and did not want anyone to "rock the boat" so instead of allowing you to keep praticing they banished you, silenced you , the cowards that they are.

ADVERTISEMENT