Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 5 today (and 14 NFP)
For publication opinions today (5):
In John Bragg and Built on Foundation v. City of Muncie and The Housing Authority, an 8-page opinion, Chief Judge Baker writes:
A plaintiff-developer claims that the designated evidence in the underlying summary judgment proceeding is conflicting as to whether the defendant, the City of Muncie, was justified in inducing the repudiation of an urban development contract that the developer entered into with the executive director of Muncie’s housing authority. Although the developer’s arguments are focused on whether the City tortiously interfered with the agreement, this case is really about whether a valid contract even existed.In Brightpoint, Inc. and Brightpoint Europe A/S v. Steen F. Pedersen, a 13-page opinion, Judge Najam concludes:
Appellants-plaintiffs John Bragg and his company, Built On Foundation, Inc., (collectively, Bragg), appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee-defendant City of Muncie (City) and the Muncie Housing Authority (MHA), claiming that a genuine issue of material of fact exists regarding Bragg’s claim for tortious interference with a contract. More specifically, Bragg contends that the trial court erred in concluding as a matter of law that the City’s “interference” with the purported land purchase and development contract that Bragg entered into with MHA’s executive director the City was justified. Concluding that the trial court properly entered summary judgment for the City, we affirm.
In sum, none of the four issues raised by Brightpoint and BPE demonstrate an erroneous determination by the trial court or an abuse of discretion in the court's application of the rule of comity. The Indiana litigation and the Danish litigation involve the same parties, substantially identical subject matter, and substantially similar remedies. Additionally, it was within the court's discretion to consider the Danish litigation the first-filed action. As such, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted Pedersen's Motion to Dismiss based on comity.In A.S. v. State of Indiana , an 18-page opinion, Judge May concludes:
While A.S. should not have been subjected to detention without counsel or a valid waiver of counsel, we may not reverse her ultimate adjudication as a delinquent; she was represented by counsel at the time of her final hearing, her hearing was held within sixty days as required by statute, and she was not entitled to a jury trial. We accordingly affirm in part and reverse in part.Michael L. Smith v. State of Indiana - "The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining Smith’s proposed mitigators, and his sentence is not inappropriate. However, the probation condition regarding polygraph tests must be amended. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded."
In Stacey Fowler v. State of Indiana , a 10-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:
Stacey Fowler appeals her conviction for Class B misdemeanor battery. We hold that (1) the victim's booking card from a prior, unrelated arrest was admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule, (2) introduction of the booking information did not violate Stacey's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, (3) even if the exhibit was unnecessarily cumulative, Stacey fails to establish that she was prejudiced as a result of its admission, and (4) any alleged error in the exclusion of the arresting officers' out-of-court statements was waived for failure to make an offer of proof. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.NFP civil opinions today (6):
NFP criminal opinions today (8):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 30, 2010 11:32 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions