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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT