Thursday, June 09, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 9 NFP)
For publication opinions today (4):
In Brian Smith v. Brendonwood Common, Inc. , a 4-page opinion, Judge May writes:
Brian Smith appeals summary judgment for Brendonwood Common, Inc. He presents multiple issues, but we find dispositive that Smith had no standing to bring his claim. We affirm. * * *In Josh Gold, Mitch Gold and Andrea Gold v. Cedarview Management Corp., a 12-page opinion, Judge May concludes:
As Smith was not injured by Brendonwood's actions, he does not have standing to pursue his claim. Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment in favor of Brendonwood.
As the Lease Agreement and Settlement Agreement were contemporaneous documents, the trial court did not err in considering the Lease Agreement when determining Josh Gold was a guarantor. The Settlement Agreement did not address Cedarview’s claim for the December 2008 non-payment of rent because it was entered before Josh revoked the ACH payment. Finally, we find no merit to Gold’s assertion that Cedarview breached the lease by locking him out of the premises on February 17, 2009. Therefore, we affirm the $48,520.44 (plus interest) summary judgment in favor of Cedarview.In Patrick J. Trainor v. State of Indiana , a 9-page opinion, "Trooper Kaizer began receiving various collectible items in the mail that neither he nor any member of his household had ordered. Trooper Kaizer contacted the company that had sent many of the items and informed the company's representative that he had not placed the orders. The company cancelled all outstanding billings and unshipped orders and provided Trooper Kaizer with several of the original order forms it had received for items that had been ordered in his name. * * * We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Trainor's convictions of Class D felony counterfeiting."
In United States Steel Corp., et al. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co. , a 38-page opinion in an appeal from a final order of the IURC,which is defended by NIPSCO, Judge Mathias concludes:
The Commission erred in concluding that U.S. Steel's distribution of electricity to ArcelorMittal made it a public utility pursuant to Indiana Code section 8-1-2-1(a) and in its determination that U.S. Steel had violated the Service Area Assignments Act. Accordingly, we remand to the Commission with instructions to vacate these portions of its order. However, the Commission correctly determined that U.S Steel's transportation of gas on ArcelorMittal's behalf made it a public utility for the purposes of Indiana Code section 8-1-2-87.5(b) and that U.S. Steel violated NIPSCO's tariff prohibition on the resale of natural gas. Additionally, we conclude that the Commission did not err in dismissing the Steel Producers' claim against NIPSCO. With regard to NIPSCO's cross-appeal, we conclude that the Commission did, in fact, address one of the claims NIPSCO claims it overlooked, and properly chose not to address the remaining two.NFP civil opinions today (4):
NFP criminal opinions today (5):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 9, 2011 10:59 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions