« Indiana Decisions - Four from the 7th Circuit Today | Main | Law - Three U.S. Supreme Court decisions of interest »

Monday, May 17, 2004

Indiana Decisions - Six new opinions posted by the Court of Appeals today

Illinois Farmers Insurance Company v. Gerry & Linda Wiegand, et al. (5/17/04 IndCtApp) [Insurance]
Sharpnack, Judge

In summary, we hold that the trial court did not err by granting Insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment and finding that the ATV is a motor vehicle as defined in the Policy. We also hold that the trial court erred by granting the Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment and finding that the Policy did not exclude the Slaughterbecks’ negligent supervision claim.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court finding that the ATV is a motor vehicle under the Policy, and we reverse the judgment of the trial court finding that the Slaughterbeck’s negligent supervision claim is covered under the Policy. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
MATHIAS, J. and VAIDIK, J. concur

Christopher Moultry v. State of Indiana (5/17/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
May, Judge
[Defendant Moultry] appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of cocaine and handguns found in his car. Moultry asserts the evidence supporting the charges was obtained pursuant to an investigatory stop conducted without the reasonable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment. * * *

When significant aspects of the anonymous informant’s prediction are verified, there is reason to believe not only that the anonymous informant was honest, but also that the anonymous informant’s information is sufficiently credible to justify an investigatory stop. Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268, 1271 (Ind. 1997) (citing Alabama v. White 496 U.S. 325, 332 (1990)). The anonymous tip received on July 12, 2002, in conjunction with the information police obtained from Harris and the vehicle registration and prior criminal record information on Moultry obtained by Officer Shaughnessy, provided reasonable suspicion to support the stop of Moultry’s vehicle. Based on the totality of the circumstances of Moultry’s stop, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and NAJAM, J., concur.

RMJ Enterprises v. Scottsdale Insurance Company (5/17/04 IndCtApp) [Insurance]
Sharpnak, Judge
RMJ raises one issue, which we restate as whether the limit of coverage on the insurance policy provided to RMJ by Scottsdale was $135,000 or $270,000. * * * If the policy was issued without the handwritten revisions, then the policy could be read to provide for $135,000 in coverage for the “approved roof, frame bldg., owner occupied as office” and for $135,000 in coverage for the “upstairs apartment” for a total of $270,000 in coverage. However, if the policy was issued with the handwritten revisions, then the policy unambiguously provides for $135,000 in coverage for the “approved roof, frame bldg., owner occupied as office & apt.” Consequently, we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment in this case. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Scottsdale and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MATHIAS, J. and VAIDIK, J. concur
Joseph T. Gaerte v. State of Indiana (5/17/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]

George D. Adams, et al. v. George H. Rinaker, et al. (5/17/04 IndCtApp) [Real Estate]
May, Judge

MAY, Judge
[“Adams”], owners of a driveway easement, appeal the order of the Johnson Superior Court granting judgment on the pleadings for [“the Reinaker defendants”], who own properties subject to the easement and use it to access their properties. Adams argues on appeal there are questions of fact concerning whether the parties to the conveyance of the easement contemplated use by multiple, concurrent subsequent owners when the language in the deed indicates Adams and Adams’ successors and assigns would bear all the cost of repair and maintenance. * * * We reverse the decision of the court below and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
NAJAM, J., and BAKER, J., concur.
Ralph Herron v. State of Indiana (5/17/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
May, judge
Ralph Herron was convicted after a jury trial of aiding, inducing, or causing voluntary manslaughter, a Class A felony. He raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as: (1) Whether testimony by the principal that Herron, who has no legs or hands and only one arm, participated in the killing was sufficient evidence to support his conviction; and (2) Whether Herron’s sentence was inappropriate. * * * The evidence supporting Herron’s conviction was not “incredibly dubious” and Herron did not show his sentence was inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of his offense. Accordingly, we affirm.
SHARPNACK, J., and BARNES, J., concur.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 17, 2004 02:07 PM
Posted to Indiana Decisions