Edward W. Najam jr

This case involved a dispute over whether excess liability insurance policies covered an Indiana company's potential liability under federal environmental law for contamination at a Louisiana shipyard Superfund site, stemming from its predecessor's delivery of barges for cleaning. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that Indiana law governs the policies but reversed its denial of summary judgment to the insurers, holding instead that the policies' watercraft limitation excluded coverage. The court reasoned that the company's CERCLA liability arose directly from its predecessor's ownership of the barges delivered to the site, rather than from the cleaning operations themselves, making the limitation applicable under Indiana law.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involves an interlocutory appeal by the State of Indiana challenging a trial court order that would allow evidence of prior accusations of sexual misconduct and rape made by the complaining witness M.S. against third parties in a prosecution of her uncle, David E. Watson, for four counts of sexual misconduct with a minor and two counts of child exploitation. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's evidentiary ruling and remanded the case. The court reasoned that under Indiana precedent, such prior accusations are admissible only if recanted or demonstrably false, and Watson had not met his burden to show either condition applied based on the record.

criminal lawprocedure

In this negligence case, Rick Lawson rear-ended Cecil McClendon, Jr. at a stoplight while test-driving a vehicle for his employer, MGM Automotive Repair, Inc., causing McClendon a concussion. McClendon, through his guardian, sued Lawson and MGM for damages, with the defendants conceding liability but arguing that his subsequent cognitive decline and need for nursing home care resulted from Alzheimer's rather than the accident. A jury awarded $3.7 million, and the trial court denied the defendants' post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and remittitur. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings on causation and that the damages award was within the range of the evidence presented regarding McClendon's pain, suffering, and lost independence. The court reasoned that medical testimony, witness accounts of behavioral changes, and calculations of past and future care costs justified upholding the verdict.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a breach of contract dispute in which Steven Brown took possession of Chris Guinn's truck and agreed to make monthly payments on it, but stopped payments for three months while retaining possession, resulting in repossession by the lender. Guinn filed a small claims action alleging breach, and after a bench trial the court entered judgment for Guinn. Brown appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for involuntary dismissal due to the absence of the written contract, in applying estoppel to the contract term, and that the judgment lacked sufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the small claims rules and trial procedure allowed the action to proceed on Brown's admission of the contract, that the evidence supported crediting Guinn's account of the term over Brown's claim of cancellation, and that sufficient proof existed of the contract, breach, and damages.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a customer's lawsuit against a financial advisor, his employer firms, and related entities alleging violations of securities laws, fraud, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty stemming from advice to roll over IRA funds into an annuity in 2006. The trial court denied the defendants' motions to compel arbitration based on account applications the plaintiff had signed in 2003 and 2008. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 2003 application incorporated a valid arbitration clause covering disputes arising from the customer agreement, that the plaintiff ratified the agreement by signing the 2008 application, and that all defendants could enforce the clause despite initial production of incorrect agreement versions. The court reasoned that the arbitration provisions in the various customer agreements were materially the same and that the claims fell within their scope.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a shareholder derivative action filed by William T. Carter on behalf of CNO Financial Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, against current and former directors and officers. The plaintiff alleged breaches of fiduciary and good faith duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, but did not make a pre-suit demand on the board of directors. The defendants moved to dismiss under Delaware Chancery Court Rule 23.1, arguing that the complaint failed to plead particularized facts showing demand futility. The trial court granted the motion, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the allegations did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of liability for the director defendants or a breach of their duties of good faith and loyalty under Delaware law, including standards from Rales v. Blasband and the company's exculpatory charter provision. The court concluded that pre-suit demand was not excused as futile.

business & regulatoryprocedure

TDM Farms intentionally introduced a highly contagious PRRS virus to a hog finishing farm in Indiana as part of a gilt acclimation process following an outbreak at its North Carolina facility, after which the virus spread to Wilhoite Family Farm's neighboring property and caused an estimated $275,000 in losses. Wilhoite sued TDM for nuisance, negligence, and trespass, and TDM sought summary judgment on the grounds that the claims were preempted by the federal Virus-Serum Toxin Act or barred by Indiana's Right to Farm Act. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, holding that Wilhoite's claims fell outside the scope of the VSTA and its regulations because they concerned local disease control rather than the safety or efficacy of a biological product, and that the Right to Farm Act did not apply on these facts.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved the adjudication of A.R.M. as a delinquent child for acts that would constitute child molesting, as a Class C felony, and battery, as a Class B misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. The juvenile court admitted a videotaped forensic interview of the seven-year-old victim under Indiana's Protected Person Statute after finding the statement reliable and that the victim had testified at the fact-finding hearing, even though the victim could not recall details of the incident. A.R.M. appealed the admission of the videotape, contending that the statute's requirements for reliability and the victim's testimony or unavailability were not satisfied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the adjudication, concluding that the victim's appearance and testimony at the hearing met the statutory conditions for admitting the out-of-court statement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Gore v. State was a criminal appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals. The court disposed of the matter by affirming the lower court's decision in an unpublished memorandum opinion. Two judges dissented and filed separate opinions expressing disagreement with the outcome.

criminal law

In this case, plaintiff Jason Myers sued a deceased attorney's law firm, his former partner, and their insurer for the return of a retainer paid in 2004 for criminal representation, alleging fraud and related torts after the attorney allegedly failed to refund unearned fees. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings to the insurer and summary judgment to the firm and partner. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, holding that any malpractice or fraud claims against the attorneys were barred by the two-year statute of limitations, but reversed the judgment on the pleadings for the insurer. It reasoned that the complaint could be read as seeking a declaratory judgment on insurance coverage, which would be governed by a ten-year limitations period and not prohibited by the direct-action rule against insurers.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Dante Adams appealing a trial court's order transferring $25,000 in cash, seized from his vehicle during a casino investigation that led to a parole warrant and a drug-dog alert, to federal DEA authorities for forfeiture proceedings under Indiana's turnover statute. Adams argued he lacked notice of the initial transfer motion and that the State failed to show a sufficient nexus to drug activity under state forfeiture laws. The court affirmed the order, holding that the statute requires transfer upon the prosecutor's motion if the underlying seizure was lawful based on probable cause, which was present here from the dog's positive response and surrounding circumstances, and that any notice defect was cured by a later hearing on Adams' motion to set aside the order. The ruling emphasized that the turnover statute, unlike state forfeiture proceedings, does not require proof of a property-offense nexus.

criminal lawprocedurepropertyfederal power

This case was a criminal appeal brought by Marshall against the State of Indiana following a conviction or related ruling in the trial court. The Indiana Court of Appeals reviewed the matter and issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the lower court's outcome. The three-judge panel consisting of Najam, Riley, and Darden concurred in the affirmance without elaboration in the excerpted opinion.

criminal law

This case was an appeal by C.K. challenging a decision by the Indiana Department of Child Services in a juvenile matter. The Indiana Court of Appeals reviewed the case under case number 02A05-1110-JT-593 and issued an unpublished memorandum decision. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling, with Judges Najam, Riley, and Darden all concurring in the result. No additional facts or legal analysis appear in the provided opinion excerpt.

family law

In this juvenile delinquency case, D.A. entered a plea agreement admitting to battery as a misdemeanor and conditionally admitting to child molesting as a felony, with the latter count to be taken under advisement pending successful probation. The juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent on the battery count, placed him on probation, and later ordered inpatient treatment at a sex offender facility based on the probation department's recommendation over an independent psychologist's outpatient suggestion. D.A. appealed, arguing the conditional plea lacked a sufficient factual basis to support the molesting charge and that the inpatient placement violated due process and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plea challenge was not properly raised via a motion to correct error and that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering inpatient placement, as it was supported by the record and served the juvenile's best interests and rehabilitation needs.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

The case of King v. Patrick was an appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals from a lower court decision in a civil matter. The appellate court reviewed the case through a memorandum decision and ultimately reversed the trial court's ruling while remanding the matter for further proceedings. The decision was issued by Judge Najam with Chief Judge Robb and Judge Vaidik concurring in the result.

procedure

This case involves a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Davis against Dr. John Morse for failing to diagnose colon cancer during visits in 2004 and 2005, after Davis reported symptoms including rectal bleeding but Dr. Morse did not order a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. A jury found in favor of Davis, and Dr. Morse appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding certain expert testimony, a medical record, and testimony from other medical providers that could have supported a contributory negligence defense. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence because it was either irrelevant to the standard of care, not properly disclosed, or otherwise inadmissible under the rules of evidence.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case Stanley v. State was a criminal appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals. The appellant challenged a trial court ruling in a criminal matter designated under cause number 18A02-1109-CR-834. The Court of Appeals issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the lower court's disposition. Judges Najam, Riley, and Darden participated, with the latter two concurring in the result.

criminal lawprocedure

Burns v. State was a criminal appeal from the trial court in Indiana, docketed as case number 45A03-1108-CR-364. The Indiana Court of Appeals issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The three-judge panel, consisting of Judges Najam, Riley, and Darden, all concurred in the affirmance without additional published analysis or separate opinions.

criminal law

The case Gibson v. State was a criminal appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals. The court issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the disposition of the lower court. The three-judge panel reached a unanimous result, with Judges Riley and Darden concurring in the opinion authored by Judge Najam.

criminal law

This case was a criminal appeal brought by Freeman against the State of Indiana. The Indiana Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court proceedings under case number 20A04-1111-CR-619 and issued an unpublished memorandum decision. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling in full. Judges Riley and Darden concurred with the opinion authored by Judge Najam. No further details on the underlying facts or specific legal issues appear in the excerpted decision.

criminal law