ILNews

Supreme Court grants 2 transfers

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted two transfers this week to cases involving a negligence claim against a grocery store and subordinated judgment liens.

In The Kroger Co. v. Lu Ann B. Plonski, No. 49A02-0807-CV-610, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Kroger's motion for summary judgment in Lu Ann Plonski's negligence claim. Given the Indiana Supreme Court's holding in Paragon Family Restaurant v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. 2003), the appellate court determined there was no need for a judicial re-determination of duty in the instant case. Kroger's duty was sufficiently established by evidence Plonski, a patron of the store, was assaulted in the store's parking lot as she was leaving. Kroger argued it didn't have a duty to protect her from a criminal act of a third party who was not a guest or patron of the store; that even if it had a duty to Plonski, it didn't breach that duty; and that it wasn't the proximate cause of her injuries.

In Gina Johnson v. Robert Johnson, No. 46A04-0810-CV-570, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting Robert Johnson's motion to have Gina Johnson's judgment lien subordinated. The appellate court ruled the trial court's order didn't constitute a modification. The line of credit at the bank existed at the time the parties filed the settlement agreement, so Gina's judgment lien was subordinate to the bank's. The parties also failed to address her lien or its priority, if any, over the other liens in the settlement agreement.

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