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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT