Blog

​​Haste v. State (Ind. Ct. App. May 25, 2012) In this case, a criminal defendant appealed a conviction and sentence for dealing methamphetamine following an order sentencing the defendant to 10 years.

This case addresses the important issue of whether an order is “final” for purposes of an appeal.

Reynolds v. Capps (Ind. Ct. App. May 23, 2012) A landlord filed a claim for ejection and past-due rent. No judge appeared at the small claims trial, so a court reporter took down the argument from the parties.

​Clements v. Hall(Ind. Ct. App. April 24, 2012) In this case, the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s denial of a motion for relief from judgment. The defendant’s attorney was not served with the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, which the trial court had granted.

Omni Insurance Group v. Poage(Ind. Ct. App. April 23, 2012) Parties often litigate the issue of whether a person was a resident of another’s home for purposes of an insurance policy.

Darby v. State (Ind. Ct. App. April 19, 2012) In this criminal appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s petition to file a belated notice of appeal.

This case demonstrates the importance of knowing and following appellate procedural rules.

In this case, the Court of Appeals reversed the Review Board’s grant of unemployment benefits, holding that if an employee’s explanation for the behavior that led to termination is a different terminable offense, the employer has just cause to terminate the employee.

This case is Indiana's Court of Appeals' first in-depth discussion of the SCOTUS decision in Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009), which addressed the authority of police officers to conduct pat-down searches of vehicle passengers after routine traffic stops.

​The Estate of Smith v. Stutzman (Ind. Ct. App. March 23, 2012) In this case, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly set aside a default judgment entered against an employer on a claim brought by an employee who claimed he was injured due to the employer’s negligence.

​Hunt Construction Group, Inc. v. Garrett (Ind. March 22, 2012) This important construction accident case resulted in two important holdings.

​State Mutual Insurance Company v. Flexdar, Inc. (Ind. March 22, 2012) In a 3-2 decision, our Supreme Court held that the pollution exclusion in the Defendant’s commercial general liability policy was ambiguous and therefore provided coverage for the Plaintiff’s costs of cleaning up trichloroethylene that was present in its soil and groundwater.

Chaney v. Clarion Health Partners, Inc. (Ind. Ct. App. March 22, 2012) In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed its initial order awarding appellate fees and costs but modified its published decision based on two errors pointed out by the parties seeking a rehearing.

Marion County Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, LLC (Ind. March 21, 2012) This case discusses the adequacy of notice of a tax sale for property under the U.S. Constitution’s due process clause.

​The Laporte Community School Corporation v. Rosales (Ind. March 20, 2012) This child wrongful death case addresses the impropriety of jury instructions regarding a party’s contentions.

In re Brizzi (Ind. March 12, 2012) The Supreme Court determined that statements made by Carl Brizzi, the former Prosecutor for Marion County, warranted a public reprimand.

This case is one of several Indiana Appellate decisions addressing the phrase “coverage available for payment to the insured” and the Underinsured Motorist Statute, I.C. §27-7-5-4.

Insurance coverage dispute regarding coverage for proceedings related to the remediation of contamination at a gas station gave the Court of Appeals the opportunity to discuss the known loss doctrine and the reasonable notice requirement present in most general liability policies.

​Messer v. New Albany Police Department (Ind. Ct. App. March 15, 2012) This case addressed the interaction of the First Amendment right to free speech and the government’s authority to regulate the speech of its own employees.

​In re T.M. (Ind. March 13, 2012) and In re K.D. (Ind. March 13, 2012) These companion cases addressed the procedural due process safeguards required in CHINS cases. Specifically, the cases held that parents who request a contested fact-finding hearing have a constitutional due process right to such a hearing.