Opinions Dec. 7, 2022

Keywords Opinions
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Robert Lawson v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms officer Robert Lawson’s conviction of official misconduct. Finds that Marion Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lawson’s motions for judgment on the evidence. Also finds the state presented sufficient evidence to sustain Lawson’s convictions. Finally, finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give Lawson’s proposed jury instructions.

Cross DeBoer LLC v. Micol Seigel (mem. dec.)
Civil plenary. Affirms the judgment for Micol Seigel on her complaint seeking the return of earnest money she paid to Cross DeBoer LLC for the purchase of a house. Finds Cross DeBoer has not shown that the Monroe Circuit Court clearly erred when it found that Seigel did not breach the purchase agreement, nor did the trial court err when it found Cross DeBoer’s alleged damages to be disproportionate to its actual damages. Also finds the trial court did not err when it denied Cross DeBoer’s attorney fees request because there was no breach.

Eric L. Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Eric L. Jones’ conviction of Level 4 felony burglary. Finds the evidence was sufficient for the trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Jones was the intruder in the Brisons’ home.

Board of Commissioners of Delaware County, Indiana v. Indiana ABC Apprenticeship Trust, Muncie 67-400 Partners LLC, and AR Engineering (mem. dec.)
Miscellaneous. Affirms the grant of summary judgment to Dollar General on remand and the order for the Board of Commissioners of Delaware County to accept Dollar General’s right of way dedication for the development of a retail store. Finds the Blackford Circuit Court did not err in finding that the board lacked the discretion to reject the proffered ROW and that its acceptance of the proffered ROW was a ministerial act. Also finds the trial court had the authority to mandate that the board accept the proffered ROW.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}