Justices grant two civil cases, deny 27 appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted two cases, one involving how public safety officials notify the driving public about icy road conditions and a second case delving into what state law requires when it comes to property tax changing land annexations.

Justices in private conference last week decided what they would do with 29 cases, declining most of those by unanimous vote. However, on five of those cases, one or two justices disagreed. One of the 27 cases the court declined to accept involved the Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library appeal against an architectural firm handling a $100 million construction project. Justice Steven David didn’t participate in that appeal, which came from Boone County where the decision was made by a special judge.

In the two cases the court accepted, justices voted unanimously.

The first accepted case is Putnam County Sheriff v. Pamela Price, 60A01-0911-CV-551, an Owen Circuit case that the Court of Appeals ruled on July 28. The case involved a 2007 accident caused by icy roads. A woman sued the Putnam County sheriff on the grounds that he owed a common law duty of ordinary and reasonable care to warn the traveling public of known hazardous conditions like that icy road. The appellate panel affirmed the trial court’s order denying the sheriff’s motion to dismiss that civil action, finding that caselaw supports the notion he had a duty to warn the public and that the sheriff isn’t immune to liability.

Justices also granted transfer in the case of City of Greenwood, et al. v. Town of Bargersville, 41A05-0912-CV-684. The justices agreed to consider a case the Court of Appeals ruled on July 15. In that ruling, the appellate court for the first time addressed whether the waiver of the right to remonstrate against a land annexation constitutes “consent” under Indiana Code Section 36-4-3-9.

Bargersville obtained land owner signatures in a territory the town wanted to annex, including 1,847 acres located within 3 miles of Greenwood’s city limits, which the city also wanted to annex. Disputes over ownership and proper petitioning ensued, and the trial court granted summary judgment for Bargersville and voided Greenwood’s attempted annexation. But the appellate court found that fewer than 51 percent consented as required by state statute, so the Bargersville annexation wasn’t valid.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.