ILNews

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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT