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. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT