« Ind. Courts - "Judges, of all people, should respect the law. This is Lake County at its ugliest." | Main | Ind. Courts - Another story about Lake County juvenile court seat »

Friday, March 15, 2013

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 13 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In State Farm Insurance Company v. Thomas A. Young and Mary E. Young, Joel P. Genth and Philip K. Genth, INGENIX , a 6-page opinion, Judge May writes:

State Farm Insurance Company (hereinafter, “Policy One”) appeals an order reducing the subrogation lien that Policy One held against Thomas and Mary Young. We affirm. * * *

In light of the unusual facts before us, i.e., that State Farm issued both Policy One and Policy Two, we decline to adopt State Farm Policy One’s premise that its subrogation lien should not be reduced based on State farm Policy Two’s refusal to pay the full amount of the Youngs’ claim. The purpose of subrogation is to avoid unjust enrichment. George, 681 N.E.2d at 186. State Farm paid under Policy One for some of the Youngs’ damages, and thus was entitled to a subrogation lien. But “the one primarily liable,” Wirth, 950 N.E.2d at 1216, and who “in good conscience should have been” paying, id., was State Farm under Policy Two. Therefore, to allow State Farm to recover the full value of its subrogation lien under Policy One, when State Farm did not pay the full value of Youngs’ claim under Policy Two, would unjustly enrich State Farm.

As we may “affirm on any legal theory supported by the evidence adduced at trial,” Trust No. 6011, 967 N.E.2d at 14, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

In Charles Meriwether v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion, Judge May writes:
Charles Meriwether appeals his convictions of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and Class D felony possession of paraphernalia. He presents one issue for our review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted Meriwether’s statement indicating he had marijuana in his vehicle, and the marijuana and pipe subsequently found therein. We affirm.
In Matthew Bryant v. State of Indiana , a 20-page opinion, Sr. Judge Darden writes:
Matthew Bryant appeals his conviction and sentence for aggravated battery, a Class B felony, and for being a habitual offender. We affirm.

Bryant raises four issues, which we expand and restate as:

I. Whether Bryant was deprived of his right to a speedy trial under the federal and state constitutions.
II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence.
III. Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Bryant’s conviction for aggravated battery.
IV. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Bryant.
V. Whether Bryant’s sentence is appropriate.

NFP civil opinions today (8):

NIPSCO Industrial Group v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (NFP)

D.P. v. M.Y. (NFP)

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.C., M.H., A.J., D.J., & J.J. (Minor Children), and M.H. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

MJB Lawn Care v. Tower Cleaning Systems, Inc. (NFP)

Kentuckiana Trench Shoring, LLC v. National Water Service, LLC (NFP)

Kimberly R. Goff (Miller) v. Larry Goff (NFP)

Samuel G. Dykstra and Michelle L. Bahus v. The City of Hammond (NFP)

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.B., Minor Child, and Her Mother, A.B.: A.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (5):

In State of Indiana v. Mark M. Hairston (NFP), a 13-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:

In 2005, a jury convicted Mark M. Hairston of multiple felonies, including class A felony kidnapping, class B felony aiding criminal deviate conduct, two cocaine-related offenses, and battery. The jury also found him to be a habitual offender and a repeat sexual offender. The trial court sentenced him to 147 years. On direct appeal in 2006, this Court affirmed his convictions and sentence.

Hairston later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise on direct appeal the issue of insufficiency of evidence to prove the habitual offender count against him. The post-conviction court agreed and vacated his thirty-year habitual offender enhancement.

The State now appeals, claiming that the post-conviction court erred in vacating the habitual offender finding against Hairston. We reverse.

Joshua Gaunt v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Mahoganee K. Edmond v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Tyrone Frazier v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Christopher Whirl v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 15, 2013 10:30 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions