ILNews

Opinions April 21, 2014

April 21, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Old Utica School Preservation, Inc., Kenneth Morrison, Scott Sandefur, and Pamela Sandefur v. Utica Township, John Durbin, Utica Township Trustee, Jacobs Well, Inc., Kevin Williar, John Posey, et al.
10A05-1308-PL-388
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Utica Township defendants and remands for proceedings on their claims. Old Utica School Preservation plaintiffs are entitled under the public standing doctrine to proceed with their claim that the township violated language in a quitclaim deed requiring the former school to be operated by the township solely for park and recreation purposes. Plaintiffs sued when the township leased the building for purposes including temporary housing or a halfway house for criminal offenders.

Moran Electric Service, Inc., and Threaded Rod Company, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, City of Indianapolis, Ertel Manufacturing Corp.
49A02-1305-MI-432
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court denial of plaintiffs’ motions to intervene and motions for preliminary injunction in litigation between the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, the City of Indianapolis and Ertel Manufacturing Corp. The trial court erred in determining it did not have subject matter jurisdiction in a case involving environmental cleanup of Ertel and neighboring properties, including plaintiffs in this case. Plaintiffs also had an immediate and direct interest in the proceedings. Remanded for proceedings.

James Clark v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1305-CR-416
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class C felony robbery and two counts of Class D felony theft.

Rodney S. Perry Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1309-CR-369
Criminal. Reverses dismissal of petition for additional credit time not awarded by the Indiana Department of Correction, concluding that Perry had exhausted his administrative remedies. Remands to the trial court to entertain the petition on the merits without delay.

Laura Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-PC-651
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Thomas D. Dillman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A05-1307-CR-331
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence for conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Yansie G. Norment v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1308-PC-390
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline.  The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT