Opinions Nov. 22, 2010

November 22, 2010
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
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
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I commend Joe for standing up to this tyrant attorney! You ask why? Well I’m one of David Steele victims. I was in desperate need of legal help to protect my child, David saw an opportunity, and he demanded I pay him $3000. Cash. As I received motions and orders from court he did nothing! After weeks of emails asking him to address the legal issues, he responded by saying he was “on vacation “and I should be so lucky to have “my attorney” reply. Finally after lie on top of lie I asked for a full refund, which he refused. He then sent me “bills” for things he never did, such as, his appearance in the case and later claimed he withdrew. He never filed one document / motion for my case! When I finally demanded he refund my money he then turn to threats which scared my family for our lives. It seem unreal we couldn’t believe this guy. I am now over $100,000 in debt digging out of the legal mess he caused my family. Later I was finally able to hire another law office. I met Joe and we worked diligently on my case. I soon learn Joe had a passion for helping people. As anyone who has been through a legal battle it is exhausting. Joe was always more than happy to help or address an issue. Joe was knowledgeable about all my concerns at the same time he was able to reduce the stress and anxieties of my case. He would stay late and come in early, he always went the extra mile to help in any way he could. I can only imagine what Joe and his family has been through, my prayers go out to him and all the victims.

  2. Steele did more than what is listed too. He purposely sought out to ruin me, calling potential employers and then lied about me alleging all kinds of things including kidnapping. None of his allegations were true. If you are in need of an ethical and very knowledgeable family law paralegal, perhaps someone could post their contact information. Ethics cannot be purchased, either your paralegal has them or they do not.

  3. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  4. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  5. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise