« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit issues one Indiana decision today | Main | Ind. Decisions - "Judge upholds Plainfield sex offender ban" »

Monday, March 17, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 1 NFP)

For publication opinions today (1):

In Rebecca Cox v. Harry Cox, a 10-page, 2-1 opinion, Sr. Judge Sullivan writes:

Appellant Rebecca Cox (“Wife”) appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee Harry Cox’s (“Husband”) petition for modification of a maintenance order. We reverse and remand.

Wife raises one issue for our review, which we restate as: Whether the trial court erred when it modified Husband’s obligation to provide insurance coverage for Wife. * * *

In keeping with the decision in Erwin, we reverse the modification order of May 17, 2007, and remand for further proceedings. In doing so we recognize, as in McCormick, that the medical and economic situation of Wife may have substantially changed since the order was issued. It may also be that Husband’s economic situation has changed. The trial court is not precluded from hearing additional evidence upon such matters so as to make an appropriate determination as to Husband’s insurance maintenance obligation under the present circumstances as the parties, and the scope and extent of such obligation, if any.

The modification order is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded.

ROBB, J., concurs.
FRIEDLANDER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part with separate opinion. [which begins] I agree with the majority that the order modifying maintenance should be reversed. I respectfully disagree that the matter should be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

NFP civil opinions today (1):

In Rubertha J. Johnson et., al., v. Guide Corporation (NFP), a 14-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:

Rubertha Johnson and 317 other former employees of Guide Corporation (collectively, the “Employees”) appeal the trial court’s grant of Guide’s motion for summary judgment and denial of their motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Employees raise four issues, one of which we find dispositive and restate as whether the trial court properly concluded the Labor Management Relations Act (the “LMRA”) preempted the Employees’ claims for liquidated damages and attorney fees under the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. Concluding the trial court properly applied the LMRA to preempt the Employees’ claims, we affirm and remand. * * *

The trial court properly concluded that section 301 of the LMRA preempts the Employees’ claims for liquidated damages and attorney fees under the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. Accordingly, we affirm and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the trial court should determine whether the CBA’s grievance and arbitration procedures apply to the Employees’ claims pursuant to federal labor law and, if so, whether the Employees failed to exhaust those procedural remedies. Affirmed and remanded.

NFP criminal opinions today (0):

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 17, 2008 01:28 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions