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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT