« Courts - "Astor Trial (Finally!) Heads to the Jury" | Main | Ind. Gov't. - More on: Daniels' welfare privatization: Too big to fail? Shouldn't we be working on a Plan B? »
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 0 today (and 10 NFP)
For publication opinions today (0):
NFP civil opinions today (4):
Francean (Moad) Bohm v. Anderson Woods, Inc., and Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. (NFP) - This is a per se appeal of a Worker's Compensation denial. "The argument section of an appellant’s brief “must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on. . . .” Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). We will not consider an appellant’s claims when she fails to present cogent arguments supported by authority as required by the rules. * * *
"Here, the argument section of Bohm’s brief is devoid of citation to authority as required by the appellate rules. Furthermore, Bohm fails to make any colorable showing of alleged error. Accordingly, Bohm’s failure to develop cogent argument waives the issues she raises on appeal. Notwithstanding that waiver, we find that Bohm has failed to make a showing of error. The decision of the Board is summarily affirmed."
Bruce Farlow, et al v. Calvin Ralston, et al (NFP) - "A tax deed creates a presumption that a tax sale and all of the steps leading to the issuance of the tax deed were properly executed. Nieto v. Kezy, 846 N.E.2d 327, 337 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Subject to restrictions imposed by Indiana Code § 6-1.1-24-11(b), which we need not discuss here, this presumption may be rebutted by affirmative evidence to the contrary. Id. The Ralstons' chain of title to Lot 28 of Thayer's Addition can be clearly traced back to a tax sale in 1967 and a subsequent tax deed in 1971. We have determined that the Farlows have no interest in this property, and they cannot, therefore, challenge the presumption of validity of the Ralstons' title. We cannot say that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Ralstons."
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.M., T.M., and W.M.; J.B. v. IDCS (NFP) - "Concluding that the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights is supported by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm."
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of O.A.; T.A. v. IDCS (NFP) - "Father cites to no authority to support his position. Thus, this argument is waived. See Smith v. State, 822 N.E.2d 193, 202-03 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“Generally, a party waives any issue raised on appeal where the party fails to develop a cogent argument or provide adequate citation to authority and portions of the record.”), trans. denied. Waiver notwithstanding, we find no error in terminating Father’s parental rights. Hence, we cannot say that the trial court erred in allowing Mother to terminate her parental rights."
NFP criminal opinions today (6):
Michael Hunter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
James Talley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Charles Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Linda S. Gentry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
D.G. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Cedric Eldridge-West v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 22, 2009 12:35 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions