Indianapolis, Indiana — The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the convictions of Nicholas Karagianis, affirming his sentencing on multiple drug and firearm-related charges. The court’s ruling confirms Karagianis’ guilt on two counts of distributing more than 50 grams of methamphetamine and a count for possessing a firearm as a felon. He is to serve a combined total of 168 months on the drug charges and an additional 120 months for the firearm charge, all to run concurrently.
The appeals court found that Karagianis failed to demonstrate that any actions taken by the district court significantly impacted his rights or undermined the fairness of the trial. The ruling also indicated minimal likelihood that Karagianis would have received a lesser sentence, even if the court had accepted the agreed-upon total offense level negotiated by both parties.
In a separate case, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed a dispute involving Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company and Technicolor USA Inc. The court upheld a lower court’s decision granting partial summary judgment in favor of Technicolor regarding insurance coverage under its Umbrella Policies. This ruling mandates that Allianz defend Technicolor and reimburse it for costs incurred during a separate class action defense.
The court determined that neither the known loss doctrine nor the policies’ deemer clauses prevented Allianz from covering Technicolor’s legal expenses. In addition, the court asserted that Allianz is responsible for indemnifying Technicolor for various fees related to its operations. The judgment also included an affirmation of prejudgment interest calculations on Technicolor’s attorney invoices, effective from the date those invoices became due.
In another civil matter, Trent Dishman lost his appeal against the Henry County Redevelopment Commission. The court confirmed the lower court’s summary judgment in favor of the Redevelopment Commission regarding a breach of contract claim against Dishman. The decision highlighted that the trial court accurately interpreted the option agreement terms, dismissing Dishman’s contention that his receipt of the option exercise notice was necessary for its validity.
The court found that Dishman’s efforts to modify the agreement were inconsistent with its straightforward language, further reinforcing the original judgment. This ruling illustrates the court’s commitment to upholding contractual clarity and intent.
These rulings demonstrate the judicial system’s ongoing role in interpreting contract laws and ensuring accountability within the legal framework.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.