Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowIndiana Supreme Court
Facundo Ramos-Osario v. State of Indiana
No. 26S-CR-198
On petition to transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court 35, Senior Judge Barbara Crawford. The Supreme Court affirms the trial court’s judgment, holding that evidence obtained during a traffic stop was constitutionally acquired. The petitioner argued that the evidence should be suppressed due to a lack of reasonable suspicion at trial, contending that the suppression hearing’s findings were not available for consideration by the trial judge. The court explains that once the state demonstrates constitutional compliance at a suppression hearing, it is not required to prove it again at trial. Thus, the trial court could consider evidence from both the suppression hearing and the trial, leading to the conclusion that the stop was constitutional. Justice Molter authored the opinion, with Justices Massa and Slaughter concurring. Chief Justice Rush dissented, emphasizing the need for evidence before the trial judge at the time of the ruling. Justice Goff joined her dissent. Appellant’s attorney: Alexander E. Budzenski, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
Indiana Supreme Court
Franklin T. Wike, et al., v. Grandview Solar Project, LLC; Town of Grandview, Indiana Board of Zoning Appeals; Town of Grandview, Indiana Town Council; and Town of Grandview, Indiana Zoning Administrator
No. 26S-PL-192
On petition to transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Spencer Circuit Court, Special Judge Nathan A. Verkamp. The Indiana Supreme Court affirms the trial court’s decision, concluding that the Town of Grandview’s special exception approval for a solar project was voidable rather than void. This ruling arises from a challenge to the board of zoning appeals’ authority, as the town lacked statutory authority to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in its comprehensive plan. Despite this failure, the town had the general authority to grant special exceptions, and objections to its decision were waived because they were not raised within the 30-day review period. The court emphasizes the importance of finality in zoning decisions, clarifying that collateral attacks on a board of zoning appeals’ decisions are permissible only when such decisions exceed the authority granted by law. Justice Massa authored the opinion, with Justices Slaughter and Molter concurring, and Justice Goff dissenting, arguing that the town’s Board of Zoning Appeals acted beyond its statutory authority in the first place. Chief Justice Rush joined the dissent. Appellant’s attorney: Jason M. Kuchmay, Snyder Morgan & Kuchmay LLP, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Attorneys for appellee Grandview Solar Project LLC: Matthew D. Neumann, Margaret M. Christensen and Jessica L. Meek, Dentons Bingham Greenebaum LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana. Attorneys for appellees town of Grandview, Indiana Board of Zoning Appeals; town of Grandview, Indiana Town Council; and town of Grandview, Indiana zoning administrator: Deiona M. Camargo, Reminger Co. LPA, Evansville, Indiana; and Katherine M. Haire, Reminger Co. LPA, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Douglas Hicks v. Rebecca Hicks
No. 25A-DC-2054
Appeal from the Wayne Circuit Court, Judge April R. Drake. Douglas Hicks appeals the trial court’s dissolution of his marriage to Rebecca Hicks, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital estate. The court found that the division was inequitable, as it awarded a slight advantage to husband based solely on income disparities, failing to address all statutory factors for such a division. The appellate court ruled that the trial court’s plan for handling the marital residence, contingent on its sale, would result in the husband receiving only 4% of the marital estate if sold, which the appellate court found to be clearly erroneous. The appellate court thus reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion, with Judges Weissmann and Foley concurring. Appellant’s attorneys: Alexander N. Moseley and Adrian Deneen, Dixon & Moseley P.C., Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Christopher T. Armour, BBFCS Attorneys, Richmond, Indiana.
This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.