« Ind. Law - More on: Indiana Lawyer James Bopp Jr. featured in Nov. ABA Journal | Main | Ind. Courts - More on: "Small claims judge sues Center Twp trustee" [Updated] »

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 10 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Rita (Threlkel) Quinn v. Robert A. Threlkel, an 18-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:

Rita Quinn appeals the trial court’s order on her petition for modification of child support and for payment of college expenses from her ex-husband, Robert Threlkel, for their child, Elaine Threlkel. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. * * *

We remand for further consideration and clarification of the post-secondary education expense order in this case in proceedings consistent with this opinion. We also reverse the trial court’s current formulation of Robert’s child support obligation and remand for recalculation consistent with our supreme court’s guidelines, commentary, and worksheets. We affirm the trial court’s decisions regarding the non-retroactivity of the modification of Robert’s child support obligation and the dependent tax exemption for Elaine.

In Timothy J. Clancy v. Dianna Goad and Robert Goad, a 21-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:
Case Summary. Timothy Clancy appeals the jury verdict awarding Dianna and Robert Goad damages stemming from an accident where Clancy’s truck collided with Dianna’s motorcycle. The jury awarded Dianna $10 million for injuries including the loss of her left leg, and Robert, who witnessed the accident, received $1 million for his claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Clancy argues that both awards are excessive in light of the evidence presented at trial and that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury on the modified impact rule with respect to Robert’s claim. We find, as to both Dianna and Robert, that the jury’s awards for damages are reasonable in light of the evidence presented at trial. We also find that Robert sustained an “impact” for purposes of the modified impact rule when he chose to execute an emergency maneuver with his motorcycle in order to help his wife and that maneuver resulted in him falling to the asphalt and sustaining minor injuries. As such, the trial court was correct to instruct the jury on the application of the modified impact rule. We therefore affirm in all respects.
NFP civil opinions today (4):

Michelle Hartwell v. United Consulting Engineers, Inc.; United Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Hunt Paving Co., Inc. (NFP)

Fast Tek Group, LLC v. On Site, LLC (NFP)

Jerrolyn M. Douglas v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Chavis & Chavis (NFP)

Marriage of Anna Calabrese v. Robert Calabrese (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (6) (link to cases):

Lonnie Washington v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Dylan Morgan v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jeorge Celayos v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Gus N. Leftakes v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Samuel A. Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Anthony Fisher v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 20, 2006 02:25 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions