« Stage collapse - "The attorney general's office has made their settlement offer to victims of the State Fair stage collapse" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Non-Indiana 7th Circuit opinion today on Truth-in- Lending Act (TILA) »
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 7 today (and 13 NFP)
For publication opinions today (7):
In Toshiano Ishii, Matthew Stone, Greg Hardin, Lisa Hardin, William Neely, and Michael Grider, et al. v. The Hon. William E. Young, Judge, an 8-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
Toshiano Ishii, Matthew Stone, Greg Hardin, Lisa Hardin, William Neely, and Michael Grider (on their own behalf and on behalf of Defendants and others appearing before the Marion County Traffic Court) (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal the trial court’s order granting the motion to dismiss of the Honorable William E. Young, Judge. Appellants raise one issue, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court properly granted Judge Young’s motion to dismiss. We affirm. * * *For background on this case, see this Dec. 8, 2009 ILB entry headed "Lawsuit challenges Indianapolis traffic court fines." For a comment on today's opinion an attorney in the firm that brought the suit, see this post from Ogden on Politics.
On December 27, 2010, Judge Young filed a motion to dismiss arguing in part that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to review the actions of another court or to issue a writ of mandate or prohibition against another superior court and that the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the procedures of the Marion County Traffic and Parking Court. * * *
In their Complaint, Appellants clearly requested an “Order of Prohibition” and an “Order of Mandamus.” However, the Indiana Supreme Court has exclusive, original jurisdiction over actions for writs of mandamus and prohibition against inferior courts, and the reason for this rule is that the Indiana Supreme Court alone has authority over the supervision of State courts. * * * Based upon the record, we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the Complaint and granted Judge Young’s motion to dismiss.
In Bonita G. Hilliard, in her capacity as Trustee of the H. David and Bonita G. Hilliard Living Trust v. Timothy E. Jacobs, an 11-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:
Bonita Hilliard appeals the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Timothy Jacobs in this attempted second lawsuit over the disposition of life insurance policy proceeds. We find that res judicata applies since the issues have already been decided adversely to Hilliard. We also find Hilliard’s due process and fundamental fairness concerns to be without merit. Finding no error in the trial court’s ruling, we affirm the granting of summary judgment in favor of Jacobs.In Indiana Regional Recycling, Inc.v. Belmont Industrial, Inc., a 16-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:
Appellant-Plaintiff, Indiana Regional Recycling, Inc. (Indiana Regional), appeals the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Appellee-Defendant, Belmont Industrial, Inc. (Belmont), with respect to Indiana Regional’s claims that it had an easement from prior use or necessity on Belmont’s property, and that Belmont had committed tortious interference with Indiana Regional’s contract with its tenant. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.In Continental Insurance Co., National Fire Insurance Co.of Hartford, Continental Casualty Co., and Columbia Casualty Co. v. Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc., and Waste Management Holdings, Inc., a 14-page, 2-1 opinion, Judge Mathias writes:
Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc. (“WTI”) and Waste Management Holdings, Inc. (“Waste Management”) (collectively “Waste”) sued a large number of insurance companies (collectively “the Insurers”) seeking insurance coverage for underlying asbestos and mixed dust-related claims. In this interlocutory appeal, the Insurers appeal the Marion Superior Court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment in connection with Waste’s second amended and supplemental complaint. On appeal, the Insurers present a number of issues, which we consolidate and restate as the following: whether the trial court erred in determining that Waste might be entitled to coverage under the Insurers’ policies. We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. * * *A.A.Q. v. State of Indiana
For all of these reasons, we conclude that Waste is not entitled to coverage from Honeywell’s Insurers for the Baghouse Claims at issue in this appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the Insurers’ motions for summary judgment and remand with instructions that the trial court enter judgment for the Insurers on the coverage issues in the instant appeal.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VAIDIK, J., concurs.
KIRSCH, J., dissents. [with no opinion]
Tyronne Dickerson v. State of Indiana - "Did the trial court commit fundamental error when it granted the State’s request to allow the confidential informant to testify anonymously at trial? We affirm."
NFP civil opinions today (3):
NFP criminal opinions today (10):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 6, 2011 02:04 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions