ILNews

Opinions Nov. 22, 2010

November 22, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Levie S. Jackson v. State of Indiana
79A02-0912-CR-1230
Criminal. Affirms convictions of seven counts of Class C felony forgery, six counts of Class D felony theft, and finding Jackson is a habitual offender The trial court did not err in denying Jackson’s motion to sever. Because he did not present any explanation of how he was prejudiced by the timing of the additional charge, the trial court declined to reverse the habitual offender enhancement.

State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Flexdar, Inc. and RTS Realty
49A02-1002-PL-111
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Flexdar in State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co.’s action seeking declaration that it owed no coverage for environmental cleanup costs. State Auto’s pollution exclusion is ambiguous and unenforceable, so it did not preclude coverage. Concludes that Indiana Evidence Rule 407 may bar evidence of subsequent policy revisions offered to resolve ambiguity in an executed insurance contract.

Judith C. Lombardi v. Robert R. Van Deusen
10A01-0910-CV-491
Civil. Reverses order finding the Illinois proceedings to be void and the reinstatement of Van Deusen’s original support obligation retroactive to the original order. The jurisdiction has never been re-established by Indiana. Also orders a new judicial officer be assigned to this matter.

TacCo Falcon Point v. Atlantic Limited, et al.
49A04-1003-CP-202
Civil plenary. Affirms order granting the motion to deem judgment satisfied filed by Atlantic Limited Partnership XII, Atlantic XIII, and David M. Clapper. The trial court didn’t err when it granted the Clapper parties’ motion because the issues hadn’t been previously decided by other courts and weren’t barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the judgment at issue had been satisfied because when TacCo purchased the judgment, it was acting as a strawman for American Realty Trust.

Boost Up Wireless Solutions v. Brightpoint North America (NFP)
49A04-1007-CC-461
Civil collections. Affirms order denying Boost Up’s motion to set aside the default judgment entered in favor of Brightpoint on Brightpoint’s breach of contract complaint against Boost Up.

William Delk, et al. v. Reid Hospital and Health Care Servs., et al. (NFP)
89A04-1003-CT-208
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Reid Hospital, Indiana University School of Nursing, and the Trustees of Indiana University in the Delks’ complaint alleging medical malpractice.

Uma D. Chaluvadi v. City of Indianapolis (NFP)
49A02-1003-OV-230
Local ordinance violation. Dismisses Chaluvadi’s appeal of a default judgment regarding traffic tickets.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted one transfer and denied 7 for the week ending Nov. 19.
 
 
 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT