ILNews

Supreme Court grants 3 transfers

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer in three cases - David Michael Green v. State of Indiana; Beth Palmer Kopczynski and Alisha Palmer v. David B. and Peggy L. Barger; and Richard U. and Delores J. Pflanz v. Merrill Foster, et al.

In Green v. State, 45A05-0612-CR-708, Green appealed his conviction and sentence for two counts of felony murder, claiming his victim's death was out of self-defense and an accident. The Court of Appeals affirmed the state presented sufficient evidence to prove Green did not murder his victim, who was pregnant, out of self-defense and accident.

Green also appealed the admission of his pretrial statement to police and argued the imposition of consecutive sentences was inappropriate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court finding that Green's statement to police would be admissible because he had not been charged with a crime at the time of the statement nor was he engaged in plea negotiations. The Court of Appeals also ruled Green's consecutive sentence was appropriate because of the nature of the crime and multiple victims.

In Beth Palmer Kopczynski and Alisha Palmer v. David B. and Peggy L. Barger, 88A05-0612-CV-703, Kopczynski and her minor daughter, Alisha, appealed the trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of the Bargers on their claims for negligence and premises liability, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Palmers claimed there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Bargers were negligent in letting Alisha play unsupervised on their trampoline, as well as the Bargers should be liable for Alisha's knee injury while on the trampoline because it was an attractive nuisance.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment because Alisha was invited to play on the trampoline by the Bargers' young son, who lacked the authority to invite her to play on it. Alisha was determined to be trespassing when she came on the Bargers' property to play on the trampoline, and there is no evidence of willful or wanton conduct by the Bargers.

On their attractive nuisance claim, the Court of Appeals ruled the Palmers failed to show any evidence establishing the trampoline was particularly dangerous to children and that they would not comprehend the danger, nor did they show any evidence that the Bargers knew children may trespass on their property and be injured by the trampoline.

In Richard U. and Delores J. Pflanz v. Merrill Foster, et al., 36A01-0412-CT-36, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision to dismiss the Pflanzes' action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Pflanzes appealed, claiming the trial court erred in determining they did not bring their claim within the applicable statute of limitations.

The Pflanzes purchased Foster's property, where he used to own a Sunoco gas station, and ran a Big O Tires of Seymour on the site. The Pflanzes claim they never knew there were any environmental issues with the site when the Indiana Department of Environmental Management discovered underground storage tanks were causing contamination. The Pflanzes brought a suit against Foster, alleging waste and negligence and sought contribution, attorney fees, and cost for environmental liability; the Pflanzes spent more than $100,000 to clean the site.

The Pflanzes purchased the property in 1978 and the contamination was not discovered until 2001. They argue that the applicable 10-year statute of limitations did not begin until the discovery of contamination or payment of remediation. The Indiana Supreme Court previously ruled that Indiana Code 13-23-13-8, which allows a plaintiff to receive contribution from a previous owner or operator of underground storage tanks if a release occurred during that individual's ownership or operation, has a 10-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court also held the statute of limitations is discovery based and begins to run once the claimant knew or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the damage.

The trial court found that the Pflanzes knew or through exercise of reasonable diligence should have known about the onsite contamination by 1991, when amendments were made to the 1987 Indiana legislation enacted concerning underground storage tanks. The Pflanzes took no action to discover if the tanks on the property were leaking.
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

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT