ILNews

Supreme Court grants 5 transfers

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court granted five transfers within the past week to cases dealing with traffic stops, life insurance polices, unpaid medical expenses, modification of a custody order, and plea agreements.

The high court granted transfer and released its opinion yesterday in Sergio Campos v. State of Indiana, No. 45S03-0804-CR-199, involving a traffic stop and Sergio Campos' arrest after police found drugs in the car. A story in today's Indiana Lawyer Daily covers the Campos case in more detail.

The Supreme Court granted transfer April 30 to Estate of Jerome Mintz v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. and Wayne E. Gruber, No. 49A05-0609-CV-532. At issue is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Wayne E. Gruber on the estate's negligence claim and whether the court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Connecticut General as to the estate's vicarious liability, negligence, and bad faith claims. Jerome Mintz was retiring and needed to convert his group life insurance policy into an individual policy. Mintz, who died before the suit concluded, didn't properly convert his policies because he believed Gruber had taken care of the conversion. When Connecticut General wouldn't allow the entire value of the group policy converted into his individual policy, the Mintzes brought a suit against Gruber and Connecticut General. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Transfer was also granted Wednesday in James Butler, as personal representative of Nondis Jane Butler, deceased v. Indiana Department of Insurance, et al., No. 49A05-0612-CV-742; In the Matter of the Paternity of K.I., by grandmother and next friend, Juanita Ivers v. Jeremy Hensley, No. 13A05-0706-JV-329; and Bruce Wayne St. Clair Jr. v. State of Indiana, No. 76A03-0708-CR-361.

At issue in Butler is whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence regarding payments and benefits from Medicare and Medicaid in violation of the collateral source rule and whether the court erred by denying the estate's request to recover Nondis Jane Butler's unpaid medical expenses pursuant to the Indiana Adult Wrongful Death Statute. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

In Ivers, the appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling that awarded custody of K.I. to Jeremy Hensley from Juanita Ivers and granted Ivers visitation. The appellate court remanded for a determination of whether the parental presumption had been overcome and if so, whether a modification is in the best interest of K.I. and whether there had been a change in one or more of the relevant statutory factors.

At issue in St. Clair is whether Bruce W. St. Clair waived his right to a direct appeal by entering a plea agreement with a fixed plea. The trial court denied St. Clair's petition, but the appellate court reversed it, finding he had an open plea and met the requirements of Post-Conviction Rule 2. The Indiana Court of Appeals remanded the issue so that St. Clair would have the opportunity to argue for a lesser sentence in accordance with his open plea agreement.
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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT