« Ind. Courts - Steve Johnson will be retiring from IPAC July 1 | Main | Ind. Gov't. - "State Rejects Tax Credits For Planned Parenthood" »

Monday, June 13, 2011

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 5 today (and 10 NFP)

For publication opinions today (5):

In Antwon Abbott v. State of Indiana , a 14-page opinion, Judge Mathias concludes:

The trial court did not err in admitting evidence found as a result of the search warrant issued to search Abbott's body, and the school-zone enhancement statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Abbott. Lastly, Abbott's twenty-year sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Affirmed.
In The City of Boonville v. American Cold Storage, et al., a 15-page opinion, Judge Darden writes:
The City of Boonville (“Boonville”) brings this interlocutory appeal following the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss in favor of American Cold Storage NA, et al. (collectively “Landowners”). Landowners cross-appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

1. Whether tax-exempt parcels should be counted in determining whether a remonstrance has been signed by 65% of owners of land in an annexed territory.
2. Whether Landowners demonstrated standing to bring a declaratory judgment action to challenge Boonville's annexation ordinance.
In their cross-appeal, Landowners raise the following issue:
3. Whether parcels that abut public roadways, though not part of the annexed territory designated by Boonville, should be counted in determining whether a remonstrance has been signed by 65% of the owners of land in the annexed territory. * * *

[I] [W]e conclude that the language of the 65% rule, as expressed in Indiana Code section 36-4-3-11(a)(1), is not modified by the “signature counting” language of subsection (b) of the statute. We further conclude that the clear language of subsection (a)(1) indicates the legislature's intent that all property—whether taxable or tax exempt—should be counted in determining standing. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court on this issue. * * *

[II] We reverse the trial court's order on this issue and remand with directions that the declaratory judgment action be dismissed. * * *

[III] In the present case, the adjacent property is not located within the Boonville city limits and thus would be beyond Boonville's power to regulate. The land inside the boundaries of a municipality comprises its territorial jurisdiction, and except where authorized by statute, a municipality cannot impose duties on landowners outside its territorial jurisdiction. I.C. § 36-1-3-9(a). Furthermore, land underneath public roadways is not assessed to the adjacent owner. I.C. § 6-1.1-4-14(a)(4). There is no danger that the annexation will affect the rights or the taxes paid by the adjacent owners on the north side of Highway 62 and Millersburg Road. The adjacent owners do not have standing to join in the remonstrance under the 65% rule, and we affirm the trial court's ruling on this issue.

CONCLUSION. We reverse the trial court's ruling on the tax-exempt property and declaratory judgment issues, and we affirm the trial court's ruling on the adjacent landowner issue. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In Yvette Albright v. Four Winds International , a 17-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:
Yvette Albright appeals the decision of the full Worker's Compensation Board (the “Board”) affirming the decision of a single hearing member, who had concluded that Albright's employer, Four Winds International (“Four Winds”), is not responsible for providing prescription Cymbalta to Albright. Albright presents the following issues for review:

1. Whether the Board abused its discretion when it allowed evidence to be submitted to the Board that had not been before the single hearing member.

2. Whether the Board erred when it denied Albright's Application for Adjustment of Claim.

We reverse and remand with instructions.

In Khawar Muneer v. Shazi Muneer, a 5-page opinion, Judge Daren concludes:
Here, Shazi filed her petition in the county of her residence, in compliance with Indiana Code section 34-26-5-4(b). As Shazi filed her petition in a county of preferred venue, we find no abuse of discretion in denying Muneer’s motion to transfer venue.
In Jane D. Connolly v. Michael P. Connolly, a 9-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:
Jane D. Connolly (“Wife”) appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Michael P. Connolly (“Husband”). Wife raises a single issue for our review, which we restate as the following two issues: 1. Whether the trial court misinterpreted the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. 2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Wife to pay a part of Husband’s attorney’s fees. We affirm.
NFP civil opinions today (4):

Warrum Construction Inc., et al. v. Yellowbook Sales and Distribution Co., Inc. (NFP)

Paternity of B.C.; S.C. v. N.S. (NFP)

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.D.; S.D. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)

Henry Howard v. Raymond Grimes, et al. (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (6):

Kyle D. Rosenfield v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Robert P. Webber v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Cory Blocker v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Richard Bartlett v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Alfred M. Wiley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Vaughn Highley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 13, 2011 12:54 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions