« Ind. Law - More on: Home sellers lose with this new law | Main | Ind. Courts - More on: Deputy prosecutor faces contempt citation in dispute with Porter County judge »
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues three today
Susan Matteson v. Citizens Insurance Co., a 12-page opinion by Judge Sharpnack, concerns "the applicability of Matteson’s uninsured motorist coverage with Citizens to an accident that claimed the life of her husband, Bradley Matteson." The Court affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Citizens Insurance Company of America.
In Marshaun Buggs v. State of Indiana, a 20-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:
Following acquittals on felony murder and conspiracy to commit robbery and deadlocks on murder and attempted robbery, Marshaun Buggs1 was retried and convicted of murder and attempted robbery. Buggs appeals arguing that double jeopardy principles barred his retrial, that his sentence is inappropriate and disproportionate when compared to his co-defendant’s sentence, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for change of judge. Although principles of double jeopardy did not bar Buggs’ retrial, we find that the evidence does not support his conviction for attempted robbery; therefore, we reverse that conviction. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court.In Michelle A. McDonald v. James D. Lattire, a 16-page opinion, Judge Crone concludes:
To summarize, Lattire met his burden of demonstrating via his designated evidence that the undisputed material facts negate at least one of the elements (breach) essential to a negligence claim. Upon receiving Lattire’s motion for summary judgment and accompanying affidavit, McDonald was free to depose Lattire in the hopes of uncovering contradictory testimony. Instead, McDonald elicited no testimony that Lattire actually saw Elgar, knew he would not stop, had time to take evasive maneuvers, yet did nothing. Indeed, there was a total absence of evidence, expert or otherwise, that Lattire failed to maintain a proper lookout.3 Therefore, we conclude that summary judgment was appropriately granted. To conclude otherwise would be to erroneously imply that the issue of whether someone maintained a proper lookout under any set of circumstances would always create a question of fact. That cannot be. Instead, this particular case falls within the small percentage of negligence cases appropriately decided on summary judgment.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 23, 2006 10:16 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions