« Courts - Even more on fall-out from Kentucky fen-phen case | Main | Ind. Courts - Greene County Circuit Court Judge David K. Johnson to resign June 30th »

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals decides 6 today

Richard G. Tormoehlen v. State of Indiana - affirmed

In American Family Ins. Co. a/s/o Alice Griepenstroh v. Ford Motor Co., a 13-page opinion (concurrance starts on p. 10), Judge Crone writes:

American Family Insurance Company (“American Family”), as subrogee of its insured, Alice Griepenstroh, appeals the trial court’s grant of a motion for change of venue filed by Ford Motor Company (“Ford”). We reverse and remand. * * *

In summary, we conclude that Marion County is a preferred venue pursuant to Trial Rule 75(A)(10) and that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Ford’s motion for change of venue. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.

FRIEDLANDER, J., concurs.
MAY, J., concurs with opinion.

Because our opinion reaches the only result our Trial Rules permit, I concur. Nevertheless, I write separately to note my concerns about the possible implications of this result and to suggest modification of Trial Rule 75(A)(10).

Larry King v. State of Indiana - sentencing, affirmed,

In In Re A Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights by Roger L. Dunn, a 14-page opinion, Judge Robb concludes:

The transfer to Rapid of Dunn’s structured settlement payment rights that he received in settlement of his workers’ compensation claim is barred by 820 ILCS section 305/21. The trial court’s order denying approval of the transfer of Dunn’s structured settlement payment rights to Rapid is therefore affirmed.

Herbert Smith v. City of Hammond - affirmed

In Lannell Chambers, Sr. v. State of Indiana, a 14-page opinion, Judge Robb concludes:

The trial court abused its discretion when it granted the State a continuance pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(D) because the State did not show that there was evidence that it needed that could not then be had and that it made a reasonable effort to procure this evidence. Chambers is entitled to a discharge under Criminal Rule 4(B) because the State did not bring him to trial within seventy days after he filed his motion for a speedy trial. Thus, the trial court erred in denying Chambers’ motion to dismiss. Chambers’ convictions are therefore reversed, and we remand the case to the trial court to discharge Chambers.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 30, 2006 12:11 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions