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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT