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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT