Search Results

Indiana Court of Appeals
William Hoppe, as Father and Natural Guardian of Madison Hoppe, a Minor, and Shellie and Christopher Knoll v. Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana
21A-PL-73
Civil plenary. Affirms the Hamilton Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana in Safeco’s declaratory judgment action to determine whether it had a duty to indemnify their insureds, Shellie and Christopher Knoll, in a lawsuit filed by William Hoppe, as father and natural guardian of Madison Hoppe, a minor. Finds coverage under the liability section of the homeowner’s insurance policy issued by Safeco to the Knolls does not apply to bodily injury arising from the use of the golf cart. Thus, there’s no coverage under the policy for any entrustment, supervision, act, decision or omission concerning the golf cart. Also finds the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Safeco.

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Kashawn Morrow
20-2259
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Richard L. Young.
Criminal. Affirms Kashawn Morrow’s convictions on counts of Hobbs Act robbery and firearms offenses in relation to four robberies across Indiana and Ohio. Vacates the restitution award against Morrow. Finds Morrow failed to satisfy the plain error requirements to successfully challenge count 8. Also finds Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence. Finally, finds it was error for the district court to order restitution for property stolen during the Troy, Ohio robbery. Remands for a determination of the appropriate restitution award for the Ohio robbery.

The following 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals opinions were posted after IL deadline on Wednesday.

Joseph McCavitt v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
20-2727
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Civil. Affirms the rejection of Joseph McCavitt’s petition for Social Security disability benefits for his child, N.A.M. Rejects McCavitt’s argument that N.A.M., is disabled by attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, intellectual limitations, oppositional defiant disorder, and nocturnal enuresis and that his son’s conditions meet, or are functionally equivalent to three of six “domains of functioning”. Agrees with the ALJ and Indiana Northern District Court’s finding that N.A.M. did not meet any of the listings and has a marked limitation in only one functional category. Finds substantial evidence supports that conclusion.