« Courts - Sealed filings more common before Supreme Court, according to reporter | Main | Law - 7th Circuit hears Indiana voter ID case tomorrow »

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 0 today (and 18 NFP) [Updated]

For publication opinions today (0):

NFP civil opinions today (4):

In Enchanted Hills Community Association, Inc. v. Daniel R. Lyon and Roxanna Lyon (NFP), a 9-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:

The Lyons live in a subdivision in Cromwell called Enchanted Hills. Although the property owners in the subdivision live on streets such as Tiny Tim Lane, Snow White Road, Candy Cane Lane, Cinderella Drive, and Goldilocks Lane, the Lyons’ Prince Charming began to look suspiciously amphibious when they learned that their property management association was planning to erect a fence along one side of their property, impeding their access to a publicly-dedicated area.

Appellant-defendant Enchanted Hills Community Association, Inc. (Enchanted Hills), appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees-plaintiffs Daniel R. and Roxanna L. Lyon. Specifically, Enchanted Hills argues that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous because there is a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the ownership of the alleged public way at issue. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. * * *

We draw two conclusions from this unambiguous language. First, although it is true that, in examining the Plat, the Public Area is clearly intended to provide access to the boat lots, nothing in the documents limits the Public Area to that use alone. Second, the Public Area is dedicated to the use of the public and owners of property in Enchanted Hills. The Lyons fall into both categories. Inasmuch as Lot 344 abuts the Public Area, we can only conclude based on this unambiguous language that their ownership interests in Lot 344 and the Public Area include the right to use the common boundary line of the two parcels of land as a means of ingress and egress. Consequently, the trial court properly determined as matter of law that the Lyons are entitled to summary judgment on their complaint. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Max W. Bedwell, et al. v. Robert E. Springer, et al. (NFP) - "The Attorneys were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the Bedwells filed their complaint after the expiration of the statute of limitations, and, in the case of Jennie, released any malpractice claim."

Anita Thomas, et al. v.Town of Winona Lake (NFP) - "Finding that the grantor reserved fee title in the property at issue for itself and then deeded its interest to the Town, we affirm the judgment of the trial court."

In Gilmore Construction v. IDOT (NFP), a 13-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:

Appellants-plaintiffs Gilmore Construction, Inc., and Gary and Ruth Gilmore (collectively, the Gilmores) appeal the trial court’s grant of appellee-defendant Indiana Department of Transportation’s (INDOT) motion to dismiss the Gilmores’ action against INDOT for inverse condemnation, conversion, slander of title, and tortious interference with a contractual relationship. Specifically, the Gilmores contend that dismissal was improper because the allegations set forth in their complaint are sufficient to state claims upon which relief could be granted. After reviewing this matter under a summary judgment standard because the trial court considered a number of exhibits that were attached to the Gilmores’ complaint, we conclude that the designated evidence establishes that INDOT was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
NFP criminal opinions today (14) (link to cases):

Daniel Neuenschwander v. State of Indiana (NFP)

M.O. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Richard L. Hadley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Johnny Wayt v. State of Indiana (NFP)

John Q. Adams v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Mark T. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Kenneth Wagener v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Michael Dearman v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jason Goddard v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Michael J. Marcosa v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Djuan Edwards v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Demond Anderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Barbara Garcia v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Timothy Weaver v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 17, 2006 09:38 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions