ILNews

Supreme Court accepts 5 transfers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has taken five cases on transfer, including one that presents two issues of first impression on prejudgment interest.

In Kathy Inman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 41S01-1108-CT-515, the Indiana Court of Appeals found that state statute allows a litigant to receive prejudgment interest in an uninsured motorist case, even when it exceeds insurance policy limits for those types of claims. The appellate court looked at the Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute and cases from other courts to hold that a claim against one’s insurer for underinsured motorist benefits is a civil action arising out of tortious conduct and it’s appropriate to award prejudgment interest under Indiana Code 34-51-4-5.

The judges also looked to other courts for guidance on the issue of prejudgment interest in excess of the policy limits and held an insurer can be required to pay prejudgment interest in excess of uninsured and/or underinsured motorist limits in an action brought by an insured for failure to pay uninsured and/or underinsured motorist coverage.

The justices also took:

- Jimmie Ernest Jones Jr. v. State of Indiana, No. 29S02-1105-CR-511, in which the COA affirmed Jimmie Jones’ conviction of felony murder, holding the trial court didn’t err by refusing his tendered instructions on reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter because evidence suggests Jones knowingly and willingly killed the victim.

- Mickey Cundiff v. State of Indiana, No. 31S05-1108-CR-512, in which the appellate court affirmed Mickey Cundiff’s conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated, finding he wasn’t entitled to a speedy trial pursuant to Ind. Criminal Rule 4(B) despite his incarceration on an unrelated charge. A defendant must be incarcerated on the pending charges to be entitled to the benefits of the 70-day speedy trial rule, the court held.

- Jennings Daugherty v. State of Indiana, No. 89S01-1108-CR-513, in which the COA affirmed in a not-for-publication decision Jennings Daugherty’s convictions of and sentence for Class D felony intimidation, Class D felony operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, two counts of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and his adjudication as a habitual offender. Daugherty claimed that the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress constituted an abuse of discretion; his multiple convictions for possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon violated the prohibitions against double jeopardy; that the trial court erred in allowing the state to amend the habitual offender information; and his sentence was inappropriate.

- AOL LLC v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, No. 49S10-1108-TA-514, in which the Indiana Tax Court reversed the department of state revenue’s final determinations which denied AOL’s two claims for a refund. The court ordered the department to refund to AOL the use taxes it paid during the tax periods at issue.

The Supreme Court denied transfer to 37 cases, including Allan C. Bir v. Cynthia Bir, No. 06A01-1009-DR-449, in which the attorneys representing Allan asked the high court to take the case because they believed new child support guidelines are unconstitutional and the Court of Appeals doesn’t have the authority to go against them. Revisions in 2010 changed the payment scheme for high-income earners and raised the ceiling on child support obligations.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT