#United States #John H. Davis #Larry Hicks #American Family #Crown Point

Legal Proceedings: A Closer Look at the Amended Motion

In a significant legal development, The Law Office of John H. Davis has recently filed a verified motion to correct errors with the Indiana court concerning the case of Gail Lewis Hicks and Larry Hicks vs. American Family Mutual Insurance Company and Keith Head. This motion comes in the wake of a tumultuous litigation process that has seen considerable turns of events.

The case initially faced complications, as the defendant, American Family, was dismissed from the original complaint. However, litigation continued against Keith Head, who claimed that the plaintiff, Gail Hicks, bore partial responsibility for a car accident due to contributory negligence. Notably, the police report contradicted this assertion, revealing that Gail had no contributing factors in the accident. According to the report, the driver of Head’s vehicle admitted to being distracted before the collision occurred.

Unfortunately, the case encountered further challenges when Larry Hicks, who was also involved in the lawsuit, passed away. This prompted the necessity for legal protocols to take place, specifically the substitution of Larry's estate as a plaintiff. This procedural adjustment allows the lawsuit to persist on behalf of the beneficiaries of the deceased.

Following the amendment of the original complaint, American Family filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, despite it being clear that American Family had already been removed as a defendant. This moot action raised questions about the necessity and timing of American Family's motion. The trial court, led by Honorable Calvin D. Hawkins, granted this motion for dismissal a mere day after it was filed on November 11, 2024, further complicating proceedings.

This decision has led to the assertion that the trial court not only acted prematurely but also denied the plaintiffs their right to respond to the motion within the designated time frame established by both Indiana trial procedures and local regulations.

Moreover, the situation was further complicated by the denial of the plaintiffs' petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which does not comment on the merits of cases it terminates. Nonetheless, it has implications for the ongoing assertion of the plaintiffs’ rights.

A trial was slated for March 3, 2025; however, the verified motion to correct errors calls for all previous court dates that were vacated to be restored. The plaintiffs are intent on ensuring that their case against Keith Head is resolved justly.

As legal arguments and procedural maneuvers unfold in this notable case, it serves as a reminder of the complexities of law and the judicial system. The motion filed by the Law Office of John H. Davis exemplifies the effort to rectify perceived judicial oversights and further the interests of the plaintiffs.

Stay tuned for updates as this case progresses through the Indiana court system, shedding light on several legal principles and procedural dynamics at play.