« Law - "Small Litigation Shops Produce Big Results" | Main | Ind. Decisions - "Appeals court says petitioning process unconstitutional" »

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Indiana Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 12 NFP)

The ILB is trying to develop an approach to the new wealth of Court of Appeals opinions posted each day. One problem over the past two days has been that the day's opinions have not all been posted at the same time, and the latest postings on the Court site then seem to become intermingled with those posted earlier in the day, making it harder to keep track.

What the ILB will try to do is keep all its CA postings for one day in one entry. If additional cases are posted later in the day by the Court, they will be added to the end of the appropriate listing, and the entry heading will bear the note: "Updated".

The ILB will try to do brief summaries of the FP cases each day, as it has in the past, plus the civil NFPs. Criminal NFPs will not be summarized or linked (except for a general link to the court page). But should a NFP criminal case attract attention, such as a newspaper story, or a grant of transfer, the ILB may go back and add content.

For publication opinions today (4):

David Fields v. State of Indiana is 10-page, 2-1 opinion affirming sentencing.

Scott D. Wells v. State of Indiana is a 2-page, 2-1 opinion correcting two factual problems but otherwise reaffirming the original opinion.

In Bruce Jones v. Martha Womacks, a 28-page opinion, Judge Sullivan writes:

Appellant, Bruce Jones, brought suit against Appellee, Martha Womacks in her capacity as Marion County Auditor, claiming that [IC 6-1.1-20-3.2], which governs petition and remonstrance procedures for building projects proposed by political subdivisions, was unconstitutional. The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Womacks. Upon appeal, Jones claims that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, arguing both that the current case is not moot and that the statute at issue violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that it restricts the right to participate in the petition/remonstrance process to owners of real property living within the political subdivision. * * *

We recognize that this case is moot, and nothing we do now can change the fact that Jones was denied the right to participate in the petition/remonstrance process. Too, we are not inclined to overstep our judicial role and attempt to re-draft Section 3.2 to remedy the constitutional infirmities we perceive. Instead, we opt to stay the effectiveness of our holding until such time as the General Assembly adjourns from its next regularly-scheduled session. This provides the General Assembly with the opportunity to redraft or otherwise remedy the inadequacies of the current Section 3.2, if it so chooses. However, if the General Assembly does not act upon this issue by the time it adjourns, our holding will then be in effect, and the propriety of every petition/remonstrance procedure planned or then underway will be subject to the holdings of this case.

The trial court was in error to grant summary judgment in favor of Womacks in that Section 3.2 as currently drafted is unconstitutional.

KIRSCH, C.J., and DARDEN, J., concur.

In James Jarrell v. State of Indiana, a 14-page opinion, Judge Barnes concludes:
Jarrell’s confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment were not violated by introduction into evidence of the DataMaster compliance certificate, and there is sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

NFP civil opinions today (3):

Richard Beach v. Kristina A. Tormoehlen (NFP)

Robert G. Mertz v. Denise A. Mertz (NFP)

In Harrison County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Craig Bishop (NFP), a 7-page opinion, Judge Crone concludes:

In our view, the Board’s interpretation of Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.5(a), the Local Ordinance, and the Subdivision Ordinance provided a rational basis for the Board’s decision, and thus we cannot conclude that the denial of Bishop’s variance request was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to law. See Reinking v. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Marion County, 671 N.E.2d 137, 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (reviewing court may reverse zoning board’s denial of variance if it does not rest upon a rational basis, or if it was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law). We therefore reverse the trial court’s order, thereby reinstating the Board’s denial of Bishop’s variance petition. Reversed.
NFP criminal opinions today (9) (link to cases):

John Ray Fries v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Ronald Haynes v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Michael W. Morgan v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Toby Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Sherman Nicholson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Adam Miley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Nathan A. Poehlein v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Bryan B. Sullivan v. State of Indiana (NFP)

William V. Dickerson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 24, 2006 11:44 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions