« Courts - "Constitutional ballot proposal presents quandary for Michigan justices" | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit warns against baseless petitions »

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 2 NFP)

For publication opinions today (1):

In Petition for the Establishment of the Millpond Conservancy District, an 8-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:

Appellants-Remonstrators, Ralph Holman and Wayne Crowl (Remonstrators), appeal the trial court’s order establishing the Millpond Conservancy District (District). We affirm.

Issue. Remonstrators present a single issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial court erred in establishing the District because one part of the proposed project underlying the District—the construction of a road and a bridge—does not appear in Indiana Code section 14-33-1-1, the statute that lists the permissible purposes for the establishment of a conservancy district. * * *

Remonstrators’ essential contention in this appeal is that they and the other freeholders in the proposed District should not have to pay for bridge and road construction. But according to the Commission’s report to the trial court, they will not have to pay for that part of the proposed project. * * *

Because the evidence before the trial court shows that the construction of the bridge and road will not be funded by the District, we need not determine whether that portion of the project is a permissible purpose for the establishment of a conservancy district under Indiana Code section 14-33-1-1. We conclude that Remonstrators have failed to present a case of prima facie error.NFP civil opinions today (1):

In Robert J. Norris v. Bennett's Clothing & Shoes, Inc. (NFP), a 10-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:

Appellant-Defendant, Robert J. Norris (Norris), appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding Appellee-Plaintiff, Bennett’s Clothing and Shoes, Inc. (Bennett’s Clothing), damages plus additional interest and costs on its claim for breach of contract. We affirm.

Issue. Norris raises two issues for our review, one of which we find dispositive and which we restate as: Whether the trial court’s determination that Donna Norris was acting as Norris’ agent when she signed his name as a co-signer on a promissory note was clear error. * * *

Conclusion. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not commit clear error when it determined that Donna acted as Norris’ agent when she signed his name to the promissory note. Affirmed.

NFP criminal opinions today (1):

Jeramey Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 10, 2008 12:22 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions