« Environment - Mountaintop mining; Delaware County Ag Park; Recycling Building Waste | Main | Ind. Law - Your castle -- or government's domain? »

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals deals with several issues today [Updated]

In Frank Rembusch v. State of Indiana, the Court, in an opinion by Judge Baker, affirms the trial court:

Rembusch argues that: (1) the admission of the breath machine certification in this case violated the Confrontation Clause3 of the United States Constitution and his right to meaningful cross-examination, and the State failed to establish a proper foundation for its admission; (2) the breath test results were erroneously admitted because of hearsay prohibitions; (3) the BAC conviction must be reversed because the State failed to prove Rembusch’s alcohol level at the time he operated the vehicle; and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for public intoxication. Concluding that there was no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In Stephen C. Hilbert, et al. v. Conseco Services, L.L.C., a 30-page opinion, Judge Darden concludes:
The trial court did not err in granting Services’ motion for partial summary judgment because the language of the pertinent agreements establish Hilbert’s liability on the Services Notes and Guarantees and the inapplicability of the equal treatment provision. Further, Hilbert cannot assert a Regulation U defense. Therefore, the trial court’s order is affirmed.
[Update] Posted on the Indianapolis Star website at 11:39 a.m. is a story by JK Wall that begins:
The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision to require Stephen C. Hilbert to pay $72 million to Conseco Inc., the insurance company he founded and led onto the Fortune 500. The debt stems from company-backed loans Hilbert borrowed in the late-1990s to buy Conseco stock. Hilbert will appeal the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court, said spokeswoman Myra Borshoff Cook.

The 30-page ruling comes two months after attorneys for Hilbert and Conseco argued the case before a three-judge panel in Muncie, Ind. Judges Patricia Riley, Carr Darden and Paul Mathias were unanimous in their opinion, issued this morning.
See the 9/9/05 ILB entry titled "Tomisue and Stephen Hilbert attend Court of Appeals arguments in Terre Haute."

[Updated again 11/9/05] Here is the story as published in today's Indianapolis Star.

In City of Carmel, Indiana v. Carl Michael Steele, et al, Judge Robb writes:

The City of Carmel appeals the trial court’s order finding that its ordinance C-265 was invalid. We affirm. * * *

Carmel raises two issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court properly found that Carmel’s ordinance C-265 was invalid because the territory that ordinance sought to annex was not contiguous with Carmel. * * *

Carmel did not introduce sufficient evidence to prove that at the time AMLI filed its petition requesting annexation its property was contiguous with Carmel’s boundaries. Therefore, Carmel did not have the authority under Section 5.1 to pass an ordinance annexing AMLI’s property, and the trial court properly found that ordinance C-265 was invalid.

Conclusion. The trial court had the authority to review whether Carmel satisfied the statutory conditions of annexation provided in Section 5.1. Carmel did not produce sufficient evidence to prove that at the time AMLI filed its petition requesting annexation its property was contiguous with Carmel’s border, and, thus, Carmel lacked the authority under Section 5.1 to pass an ordinance annexing AMLI’s property. The trial court’s order finding ordinance C-265 invalid is therefore affirmed.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 8, 2005 10:37 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions