The Indiana Law Blog: Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 13 NFP)

« Ind. Courts - More on: Criminal charges filed against Plymouth attorney | Main | Ind. Law - Governor Daniels signs 8 bills »

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 13 NFP)

For publication opinions today (4):

In Felicia M. Chacon v. Sergeant Amy Jones-Schilds, Officer Jodi Shultz, et al, a 7-page opinion, Judge Kirsch writes:

Felicia M. Chacon appeals from the trial court's entry of judgment on a jury verdict in favor of Sergeant Amy Jones-Schilds, Officer Jodi Shultz, Officer Kevin Dalman, and the Allen County Sheriff (collectively “the Sheriff”) on Chacon's complaint alleging that she suffered injuries due to excessive force while she was in the custody of the Sheriff. She raises the following restated issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence of the lack of a recording of the incident and any negative inference arising from the lack of such recording. We affirm. * * *

Chacon notified the Sheriff the day before the trial was to commence that she intended to present evidence of the lack of a recording as well as a recording from a different case that depicted the same area of the jail where Chacon's alleged incident occurred to create a negative inference regarding the recording. On the first day of the trial, Chacon informed the trial court of her intentions, and the Sheriff made an oral motion in limine to exclude the evidence, which the trial court granted. The trial court based its grant of the motion on the fact that the lack of a recording was not made an issue in the Final Pretrial Order or any motion in limine and that it had only been brought to the attention of the Sheriff the day before the trial.

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to exclude Chacon's proposed evidence regarding the lack of a recording and any negative inference flowing therefrom. While Chacon may have been entitled to such evidence and the negative inference that the recording was potentially adverse to the Sheriff, she had the burden to comply with the trial court's discovery and pretrial orders. We conclude that the exclusion of such evidence was a legitimate exercise of the trial court's authority to control the proceedings. Affirmed.

In Everett Cash Mutual Insurance Company v. Rick Taylor and Katrina Taylor , a 13-page, 2-1 opinion, Judge Barnes concludes:

The Everett policy clearly and unambiguously excludes coverage for the particular claim Collis has made against the Taylors. Additionally, there is no genuine issue of material fact that would support the Taylors's estoppel argument against Everett. We reverse the denial of Everett's motion for summary judgment and direct that judgment be entered in Everett's favor. Reversed.

MATHIAS, J., concurs.
BAILEY, J., dissents with opinion [which concludes] It seems eminently reasonable to me that purchasers of a “Farm Personal Liability Coverage” policy represented to be a comprehensive policy for their farming operation needs would have relied upon professional representations and believed they were receiving coverage for negligent errors and omissions in the conduct of their farming operation. Nonetheless, at this juncture, we need not resolve any disputed issues of material fact. * * * I believe that the Taylors are entitled to their day in court and would affirm the trial court‟s denial of Everett‟s motion for summary judgment.

Gregory A. Smith v. State of Indiana - "Smith is entitled to a probation revocation hearing that comports with the requirements of due process. We reverse the denial of the motion to reconsider and remand for a probation revocation hearing. Reversed and remanded."

In Ruben Vargas v. Elian M. Shepherd, M.D., a 9-page opinion, Judge Kirsch concludes:

Assuming, without deciding, that Shepherd had a professional duty to obtain Vargas's written consent and breached that duty, Vargas suffered no injury as a consequence of such breach. Shepherd did not disclose any confidential information relating to his treatment of Vargas to Stock when he completed his report. The information contained in Shepherd's report was obtained from the medical records provided to him from Stock. His statement was merely a reiteration of information contained in the records of other physicians. Further, the information in the report was already known to Stock. To the extent that Shepherd breached a professional duty to Vargas, the appropriate remedy is a complaint to the medical licensing board or professional organization. The trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of Shepherd. Affirmed.

NFP civil opinions today (0):

NFP criminal opinions today (13):

Mark Adrian Hughes v. State of Indiana (NFP)

C.C. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jonathan Owens v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Becky Walters v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jose Romero Mendez v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Orville Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Alan Kibler v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Marshawn W. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Chance M. Schubla v. State of Indiana (NFP)

O.C. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)