« Environment - Governor's review of Great Lakes water-quality laws drags on | Main | Ind. Courts - Supreme Court clarifies which iteration of Indiana’s death penalty statute applies to a new sentencing phase »
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 9 NFP)
For publication opinions today (4):
In Vectren Energy Marketing and Service, Inc., et al. v. Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company , a 9-page opinion, Cheif Judge Baker writes:
Appellants-plaintiffs Vectren Energy Marketing & Services, Inc. (Vectren), and Citizens By-Products Coal Company (Citizens) (collectively, the appellants) appeal from the trial court’s order granting appellee-defendant Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company’s (ERSIC) motion to dismiss the appellants’ complaint pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6). In particular, the appellants contend that they have standing to pursue the complaint, their claim is not barred by collateral estoppel, and they sufficiently pleaded a breach of contract claim against ERSIC to withstand a motion to dismiss. Finding that the appellants do not have standing to raise these claims inasmuch as they are trying to redress an alleged wrong done to appellee-defendant ProLiance Energy, LLC (ProLiance), rather than to themselves, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.In Odessa Benaugh v. Dennis Garner, et al. , a 9-page opinion, Chief Judge Baker writes:
Appellant-plaintiff Odessa Benaugh appeals the trial court’s calculation of attorney fees owed to her by appellees-defendants Dennis Garner d/b/a Blade Runner Auto Sales, et al. (collectively, the appellees), after a jury found the appellees liable for criminal conversion pursuant to the Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act.1 In particular, Benaugh argues that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding her only $1,000 of her requested $18,325 in fees because the amount of the judgment she collected from the appellees was only $1,950 plus costs. Finding that Benaugh is entitled to more than $1,000 but less than $18,325 in fees and that she is entitled to reasonable appellate attorney fees, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court calculate the amount of reasonable trial and appellate attorney fees to which she is entitled.In Virgil Lee Haywood, Jr. v. State of Indiana , a 7-page opinion, Chief Judge Baker writes:
Appellant-defendant Virgil Lee Haywood, Jr., brings this interlocutory appeal, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. Specifically, Haywood argues that the dismissal of criminal charges was warranted because he was improperly subjected to successive prosecutions that are prohibited under Indiana Code section 35-41-4-4 (Successive Prosecution Statute). Concluding that prosecuting Haywood on subsequent charges after he had already pleaded guilty to other charges is barred under the Successive Prosecution Statute, we reverse the trial court’s judgment denying Haywood’s motion to dismiss.Martin Sargent v. State of Indiana - "Defendant-Appellant Martin Sargent (“Sargent”) appeals from his convictions after a bench trial of two counts of incest. Ind. Code §35-46-1-3. We affirm."
NFP civil opinions today (3):
Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Thomas W. Brewer, et al. (NFP)
Joni L. Walters v. Mark K. Walters (NFP)
NFP criminal opinions today (6):
Adam Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Ronald Poling v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Edward Ziemer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Marvin Castor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
James M. Smithes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Paul Winters v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 7, 2007 01:09 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions