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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT