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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT