The Indiana Law Blog: Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 15 NFP)

« Ind. Gov't. - "Judge pushes Indiana on welfare debate: Action comes just days after governor fired vendor from $1.34 billion contract." | Main | Ind. Courts - "Arguments completed in E.C. casino money lawsuit " [Updated] »

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 15 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In Crystal Reeves v. Sharon Downin, a 9-page opinion, Judge Kirsch writes:

Tenant Crystal Reeves filed suit against her landlord, Sharon Downin, seeking recovery of her security deposit, and Downin filed a counterclaim for damages to the apartment. Following the trial court‟s denial of her motion to correct error, Reeves appeals and raises two issues that we consolidate and restate as: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it rendered a judgment in favor of Downin on her counterclaim for damages to the apartment, even though Downin failed to provide Reeves with an itemization of damages and written notice of her intent to retain the security deposit. We reverse and remand.

In Marijeanne Brown-Day v. Allstate Ins. Co. , a 9-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:

Marijeanne Brown-Day (“Brown-Day”) sued her insurer, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”), for underinsured motorist benefits. We have accepted this interlocutory appeal to review pretrial orders granting a motion for party substitution and a motion in limine, which collectively prohibited any explicit reference to Allstate. We reverse and remand. * * *

Allstate is the sole defendant in this case, and neither Evidence Rule 411 nor the common law permits the substitution of a non-party so as to conceal Allstate’s identity as an insurer. Additionally, pursuant to Evidence Rule 616, evidence of bias, prejudice, or interest of a witness for or against a party is admissible, and the rule may not be disregarded on grounds that the party involved is an insurance carrier.

In A.K. v. State of Indiana , a 5-page opinion, Sr. Judge Hoffman writes:

A.K. raises one issue for our review, which we restate as: Whether the juvenile court erred in denying A.K.’s motion to dismiss, which was based on Ind. Code § 31-37-11-2(b). * * *

A.K.’s objection and motion were precipitated by Ind. Code § 31-37-11-2(b), which provides that when a child is not in detention and a petition has been filed, “the hearing must be commenced not later than sixty (60) days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, after the petition is filed.” A.K.’s motion asked for dismissal of the charges against him because the fact-finding hearing was not set within the sixty-day period following the February 1, 2008 filing of the petition listing the allegations against him.

We first observe that the juvenile code does not mandate dismissal of the charges when the sixty-day deadline is not met. Indeed, our supreme court has noted that failure to meet the twenty-day deadline for a juvenile in detention found in Ind. Code § 31-37-11-2(a) results in neither dismissal of the charges nor in loss of jurisdiction by the juvenile court, as there is nothing in the statute that can be interpreted to mandate such results. * * *

Finally, we observe that the setting of the May 12, 2008 hearing was made with A.K.’s agreement. He did not object to the setting of the fact-finding hearing outside the sixty-day period set forth in Ind. Code § 31-37-11-2(b). In the adult criminal setting, governed by Indiana Rule of Criminal Procedure 4(C), speedy trial rights are deemed waived when the time period provided by the rule has not expired, a trial date has been set for a date beyond that period, and no objection has been made. * * * Given the silence of the juvenile code and the paucity of law pertaining to the code, we hold that an analogy to the adult criminal setting is appropriate. The objective of Ind. Code § 31-37-11-2(b) is to facilitate an orderly and timely process; the section’s deadline is not a mechanism for dismissal when the court has accommodated the juvenile and a timely objection has not been made. Affirmed.

NFP civil opinions today (1):

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of G.R. and E.E.; J.R. v. IDCS (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (14):

Leon Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Richard S. Meadows v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jeffery D. Pennycuff v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Dallas S. Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Tromaine Langham v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Carleton Holt v. State of Indiana (NFP)

R.P. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Erick Damone Peters v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Michael G. Graves v. State of Indiana (NFP)