Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowIndiana Court of Appeals
MIB, LLC, Ryan Polokoff, and Sabine Kissee v. City of Noblesville and The Planning and Development Director for the City of Noblesville, Indiana
24A-PL-1893
Civil plenary. Affirms Hamilton Superior Court Judge Michael Casati’s entry of a preliminary injunction ordering that MIB cease its operations at a certain location in Noblesville and enjoining the respondents from reopening the business in any zoning district in Noblesville where sex shops are prohibited unless approved through a use variance or rezoning petition. Finds that the city and planning development director have shown they have at least a reasonable likelihood of success at trial by establishing a prima facie case. Also finds that as the city and director have shown a reasonable likelihood that MIB is in violation of the city’s ordinance, pursuant to the “per se” injunctive standard, they “need not make a showing of irreparable harm or a balance of the hardship” in their favor. Attorneys for appellant: Lonnie Johnson, Justin Schwemmer, Robert Esrock. Attorneys for appellees: Vivek Hadley, Donald Morgan, Beth Copeland.
Keith D. Harper v. S&H Leasing, LLC; K&K Real Estate Holdings, LLC; Thomas Hagen; Brian Brisco; and Jeremy Noetze
24A-PL-1606
Civil plenary. Affirms Elkhart Superior Court Judge Stephen Bowers’ judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim under the Crime Victims Relief Act, and remands with instructions for the court to determine the plaintiffs’ reasonable appellate attorney’s fees. Finds the trial court did not err when it concluded that Keith Harper had waived his statute-of-limitations defense under the CVRA or when it concluded that Harper had not been authorized to direct the transfer of funds. Also rules the findings support a conclusion that Harper committed theft. Finally, finds the trial court also did not err when it determined that Harper had breached his fiduciary duty, but the court erred when it entered judgment in favor of Thomas Hagen and Brian Brisco on their claim for unjust enrichment. Reverses that part of the court’s order. Judge Nancy Vaidik concurs in part and concurs in result with separate opinion. Attorney for appellant: Adam Sedia. Attorneys for appellees: James Lewis, Elizabeth Klesmith.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.