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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT