« Ind. Courts - More on "Clarian Health sued over high charges: Patients claim bills for services insurance doesn't cover are unreasonable" | Main | Stage collapse - "State Fair to move stage wreckage as collapse costs mount" »
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 11 NFP)
For publication opinions today (4):
In Holiday Hospitality Franchising Inc. v. AMCO Insurance Company , a 17-page opinion, Chief Judge Robb writes:
Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. (“Holiday Hospitality”) appeals the trial court's grant of Amco Insurance Company's (“AMCO”) motion for summary judgment. Holiday Hospitality raises two issues for our review, which we restate as whether an “occurrence” took place for the purposes of the insureds' insurance policy, and whether a hotel guest is “in the care, custody or control” of the hotel. Concluding the alleged negligent acts give rise to an “occurrence” under these circumstances and a genuine question of material fact remains regarding whether R.M.H. was in the hotel's “care, custody or control,” we reverse and remand for further proceedings.Jeffrey D. Lacher, et al. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Bemis Co., Inc., a 10-page opinion, contains an interesting footnote aside on p. 7 re procedural due process and an order of remand. re Issue II, Judge Kirsch writes:
The Employees argue that the evidence supports a finding that they were locked out upon Cronin’s threat of a strike, where Bemis knew Cronin had no such authority. * * *George Michael True v. State of Indiana "The trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it could convict True of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery as a lesser included offense of Class D felony domestic battery. We reverse his conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." See ftnte 4 re double jeopardy.
An employee is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits for unemployment due to a stoppage of work that exists because of a labor dispute. Ind. Code § 22-4-15-3(a). Not every controversy concerning the terms and conditions of employment, however, constitutes a labor dispute under the Act. * * *
[However] The case before us is quite different and our standard of review compels us to affirm the decision of the Review Board. * * * The evidence here does not support an inference that the Employees were locked out. The record before us does support the conclusion that an impasse had been reached on the issue of the temporary employee clause. We conclude that the evidence supports the findings of fact and the findings, in turn, support the conclusions thereon.
LeChann Davis v. State of Indiana - "Defendant LeChann Davis appeals her conviction for Class C felony Child Molesting. Specifically, Davis contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain testimony at trial and that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction. We affirm."
NFP civil opinions today (6):
NFP criminal opinions today (5):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 13, 2011 12:23 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions