« Ind. Courts - "Indiana Supreme Court Suspends Judge Accused of Theft" [Updated] | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit issues one Indiana opinion today, and an interesting Illinois opinion »

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 7 NFP)

For publication opinions today (1):

Developmental Services Alternatives, Inc. v. Indiana Family and Social Services Admin. is a 31-page opinion affirming the trial court's judgment affirming the order of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) in favor of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (“FSSA”) concerning the determination of certain Medicaid reimbursement rates.

NFP civil opinions today (3):

Greenville Concerned Citizens, Inc., Joanna Danzl, et al. v. Floyd Co. Plan Commission, et al. (NFP) - "We conclude the Commission properly interpreted and applied the frontage requirements and traffic control standards, and accordingly the Commission did not err in granting Lynn primary approval. We also conclude the traffic control standards, as applied to Lynn, did not exceed the Commission’s authority or constitute an unconstitutional exaction. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment."

Michael Plasky v. Review Board (NFP) - "The evidence supports the Review Board’s findings and its conclusion that Plasky was terminated for just cause. Based on such findings and conclusion, Plasky was not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits."

In Indiana BMV and Andrew Miller, Commissioner of the Indiana BMV v. Heather Charles (NFP), an 8-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:

The Bureau of Motor Vehicles and its commissioner, Andrew Miller (“the BMV”), appeal an indirect civil contempt order. We reverse and remand. * * *

[Notice] We find the trial court’s de novo hearing both confusing and peculiar. First, we note that the only issue discussed prior to the court’s statement was the insufficiency of notice, and Charles’s counsel had already conceded that issue. Also, neither party presented any witnesses, and the only exhibit presented as evidence was BMV employee Rice’s affidavit stating that her investigation produced no indication that the BMV received notice of the original motion or the ensuing March hearing. Again, this issue was disposed of when the trial court vacated the original contempt order. Thus, the affidavit would not be probative once the hearing had been converted to a hearing on the merits. Other than the one exhibit, the transcript contains only argument from counsel, which the attorney general attempted to limit to the issue of notice. In electing to conduct an immediate de novo hearing, the trial court deprived the BMV of the opportunity to prepare and present evidence and to make and meet arguments that transcended the procedural issue upon which the motion to correct error was based.

In sum, we conclude that the trial court properly vacated the first contempt order, but erred in issuing the second contempt order. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision. However, we address the BMV’s other issues to the extent that they may arise on remand.

[Agency as a “Person”] The BMV contends that, as an agency, it cannot be held in contempt of court. We disagree. Although the civil contempt statute speaks in terms of “a person” who willfully disobeys a court order, Ind. Code § 34-47-3-1, case law supports a trial court’s authority to issue orders against entities. [cites omitted]

[Verification of Petition] The BMV contends that Charles’s unverified petition cannot serve as a basis for a rule to show cause. We agree. * * * Because Charles’s petition lacks verification by oath, it fails to meet the statutory requirements.

NFP criminal opinions today (4):

S.N. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Joseph Fairrow v. State of Indiana (NFP)

George Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Robert Broderick v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 14, 2009 01:07 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions