Friday, January 29, 2010
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 20 NFP)
For publication opinions today (4):
In Int'l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, et al. v. Indianapolis Power and Light Co., an 8-page opinion, Judge May writes:
In a 1995 settlement Indianapolis Power and Light (IPL) obtained a rate increase, part of which would fund a trust for non-pension retiree benefits. IPL continued to fund the trust for six years. When IPL was acquired by a holding company, it curtailed its funding of the trust and cut employee benefits, but it continued charging its customers pursuant to the rate increase settlement. The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“the Commission”) decided the terms of the settlement did not require continued funding, and on appeal, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and some of the IPL retirees (collectively, “IBEW”) dispute the effect of the language in the settlement. We affirm. * * *In Paternity of T.P.; B.C., et al. v. M.P. , an 18-page opinion, Judge Bradford writes:
We accordingly cannot say the Commission was unreasonable to find the phrase “as proposed by IPL” referred only to accounting methods for SFAS 106 costs and did not require continued funding of the VEBA trust. We therefore must affirm the Commission’s Order.
 While the highly deferential standard of review requires this result, we do not condone the actions of IPL and its parent company in this proceeding. IPL described VEBA funding as one of the components of its rate case proposal regarding retiree benefit costs. It presented schedules showing twenty years of projected contributions, which schedules corresponded to “the rate inclusion . . . sought by IPL in the rate case to cover non-pension retiree benefit costs.” [ILB - there is more to this footnote]
In this paternity action brought by B.C. (“Mother”) against M.P. (“Father”), Appellants-Intervenors M. and M. L. (“Caretakers”) challenge the trial court's denial of their petition for temporary and permanent modification of custody of T.P. Upon appeal, Caretakers challenge the trial court's conclusion that they did not qualify as de facto custodians and its denial of their petition seeking joint legal custody and permanent physical custody of T.P. We affirm.P.R. Mallory & Co., Inc., et al. v. American Casualty Co., et al. , is a 41-page opinion (including an opinion concurring in result) involving complicated questions of insurance coverage in an environmental cleanup. Judge Brown's opinion affirms the trial court‘s grant of summary judgment to ACC and CCC.
In Edward Figures v. State of Indiana , an 11-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:
Edward Figures appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence. Figures raises three issues for our review, which we restate as: 1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence a probable cause affidavit and case chronology from a previously dismissed battery prosecution; 2) whether sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Figures violated the terms of his probation by committing a criminal offense; and 3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Figures to serve the entirety of the previously suspended portion of his sentence. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the case chronology but did abuse its discretion in admitting the probable cause affidavit. As a result, insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Figures committed a criminal offense. However, in light of the two other probation violations found by the trial court, which Figures does not challenge, the trial court properly revoked his probation, and the sentence imposed upon revocation was not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.NFP civil opinions today (6):
Lamar Advertising, Inc., et al. v. View Outdoor Advertising, et al. (NFP) - "The Commissioner properly applied the 500-foot rule and determined that neither View nor Lamar was entitled to a permit. However, there is not substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision that INDOT is equitably estopped from revoking Lamar's permit, and we will not reweigh the evidence concerning View's allegations that Lamar made material misrepresentations in its application. Regarding the appropriate remedy, the parties may apply for a new permit, and INDOT may issue or deny permits as it sees fit. Despite the violation of the 500-foot rule that will be created during the permitting process, Lamar need not remove its billboard unless its application is denied. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand."
NFP criminal opinions today (14):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 29, 2010 11:37 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions